Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Homosexuality

2012-01-14T00:09:07Z

RudrickBoucher:

[[Talk:homosexuality/archive_Set1|Archives]]

== Answering a question - sort of ==
''August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents?''

It may present factual evidence. But it is practically unreadable: One can only hope that Aschlafly will take this as an example for his upcoming course in [[Persuasive Writing]] and helps to improve it. Every time I try to read it, I stumble upon so many atrocities that I have to stop. But it has its magic - for me as a foreigner it highlights the many traps in which I often find myself caught!

{|class="wikitable"
|'''Homosexuality''' is the condition of "sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex."
|no problem with this sentence
|-
|
'''Theories on how people become homosexual''' [[Causes of Homosexuality|Homosexuality has a number of causal factors]] that influence its ultimate origination in individuals; these factors will be addressed shortly. In addition, homosexuality has a variety of effects on individuals and [[society]] at large which will be subsequently elaborated on. Next, some of the historical events, [[Religion|religious]] matters, and [[law|legal]] matters relating to homosexuality will also be covered. Finally, the latter part of the 20th century has seen a [[Homosexuality Research|large body of research]] on the [[Causes of Homosexuality|causes]] and effects of homosexuality; this will also be studied.
|''these factors will be addressed shortly'' - ''will also be covered'' - ''this will also be studied'': Three times we are told that something is explained in the future. One time would be enough. And besides a repetition of actions, we see the same words popping up in such a short section: ''also'', ''matter'', ''factor'', ''effect'', ''individual'' and naturally ''homosexuality''.
|-
|
'''Biblical statements concerning homosexuality and secularism/homosexuality''' Below are some [[Bible]] verses that condemn homosexuality: However, the bible cannot be interpreted literally, if this was the case then rebellious children would be killed: Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Also, Women may not speak in church: Cor 14:33-36. The bible is not a collection of dogmatic and strict rules, it is a book of God that promotes compassion, faith in God, truth, and love.
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their [[blood]] guiltiness is upon them.
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason [[God]] gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9] (NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."
|
*Bible or bible?
*Verses should be quoted in parentheses - the abundance of colons is irritating (especially when more than two sentences are linked in this way).
*''Also, Women [sic] may not speak in church'': ''also'' doesn't seem to be the right word to show that you don't subscribe to this sentence!
*The whole section is unclear, you should have divided it into two parts, one for the Old, the other for the New Testament!
*You should stick to one translation, NASB '''or''' NIV.
|}

Generally I don't criticize others for their writing: As I'm not a native speaker this could be seen as presumptuous (you like it when someone uses this word self-mockingly, don't you?) But here, so many flaws are obvious to me that I've to ask myself what I've missed because of my lack of knowledge!

I'm sure that I committed many of the atrocities of which I accuse you in my comments (even in this one) - but I'm not writing the flagship-articles in this encyclopedia. And my errors can be corrected easily: obviously the articles to which I contribute aren't locked.

I hope that my comments help you to improve your article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Regarding the flaws in this article and regular users not being able to edit it, that's the trouble with attempting to construct any reference or resource based off of a pre-formed ideology; a certain level of (rather blatantly undemocratic) censorship must be practiced in order to keep the project in line with its ideological goals.

::Certainly anybody with any significant experience dealing with gay friends/family members/co-workers/classmates/neighbors/employees can cite several fundamental flaws with this article and many of the other articles on conservapedia that relate to homosexuality. By rejecting mainstream psychological, biological, sociological, and anthropological consensus as resulting from the "liberal bias in academia" (which, trust me, does not actually exist), these articles must rely on fringe sources and exaggerated stereotypes.

::For instance, while gay and bisexual men do, on average, have a '''slightly''' higher number of lifetime sexual partners than straight men, the numbers are not nearly as high as many of the sources cited on Conservapedia claim them to be. For instance, in the United States the mean number of lifetime sexual partners for heterosexual males is pretty consistently estimated to be around 7 (this number does not change much across demographics--even evangelical Christian males average 7 partners in their lifetimes). Among MSM (the academic term for gay and bisexual men) in the United States, the average lifetime number of sexual partners ranges between 9 and 12 (depending on the conditions of the study). There are outliers in both groups, straight men reporting more than 100 lifetime sexual partners and MSM reporting similar statistics, but the relative incidence of this is roughly congruent between both groups. Assuming ~50 years of sexual activity for the average male over his lifetime (another, fairly consistent statistic), even at the high end, this means that MSM have one additional sexual partner '''per decade''' when compared to straight men. In light of the facts, the assertion that gay men are "dangerously promiscuous" is patently ridiculous.

::Finally, these articles all overlook the occurrence and cultural significance of MSM in history and non-Western cultures. I say MSM here because "homosexuality" is a rather recent Western cultural concept. In India, for instance, the "hijra" are a population that have existed for ''at least'' two thousand years. Hijra are biologically male, although some prefer to identify themselves as female (and, for them, the western term "transgender" may be the closest equivalent), but they constitute a "third sex" that conventionally takes the passive role in physical relations with nominally straight males. Additionally, the Hijra have an essential ceremonial function in many Hindu traditions (especially in northern India and in Bangladesh), and have historically been accepted as respected members of their communities. By Western standards, straight males who form physical relationships with hijra would be viewed as bisexual or homosexual. Another similar, and often cited, example is the "berdache" in the Zuni culture (many other Native American tribes have an equivalent)--these are men who occupy a social role that is a mix between the traditional male and female roles. Such people were often historically allowed to marry men occupying the traditional male role, and were often (but not always) accepted as important members of their communities. As another example, in early Christian societies (although it was predominantly a Byzantine phenomenon), ἀδελφοποίησις (literally, "brother making") has been interpreted as a form of consecrated same-sex union (this interpretation is, admittedly, somewhat controversial, but the academic consensus is that many of these unions were indeed romantic in nature).

::I know that this is a rather long argument for a talk page, so I am going to end it here. My general points are that homosexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon in human societies and that many gay stereotypes that are thrown around in conservative political discourse are not firmly grounded in fact. In my opinion, the conservative movement is better served by focusing on political values, such as individual liberty and economic sustainability, than attacking the individual liberties (or very existence of) a small minority of people. I am aware that this an unpopular notion among social conservatives, but there are many more significant issues facing the American people at this time (e.g. unemployment) than Tim and Larry up the street deciding to start a family. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:09, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-13T06:10:22Z

RudrickBoucher:

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: There are a lot of anomalies and paradoxes in quantum mechanics also. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Actually, I'm terrible at chemistry! My background is in physics and math. You talk about ideal gasses in any physics class where you discuss thermodynamics. But yeah, that's one of the classical misunderstandings among creationists. One thing I saw suggested that next time someone brings it up, ask them about the other laws of thermodynamics. What I also like about the second law of thermodynamics argument is that they don't seem to understand what entropy ''is'' and ''why'' it increases. So yeah, next time someone brings it up ask them about those things. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:18, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::Can I please delete these "counterexamples"? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:32, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::I say go for it. You've justified why they should be deleted and your justification has met with no objection. If somebody wishes to restore them, they are welcome to object here.

::::::::As an aside, there does seem to be a disproportionate number of math and physics types on here. It is interesting how the life sciences tend to be predominantly liberal, whereas there's a more even distribution of political ideology in the physical sciences. There are conservative biologists (my old PI, for example), but they are very few and very far between. Knowledge of evolution does not seem to be a factor here, because understanding / acceptance of evolution is nearly universal in all of the sciences. In biology, there is a (seemingly true, in my experience) stereotypical "personality" in each of the sub-disciplines; to reference other fields, the age-old dichotomy between chemists and chemical engineers seems to mostly hold true. I have always wondered if the "personality" of the fields would lead to the observed political differences, or if maybe there is something deeper.

::::::::Because I am afraid that my above observation may be taken grossly out of context, I must add to it the disclaimer that I am not in any way suggesting "indoctrination" of students in one field versus another (or making some other similarly fatuous insinuation). I am simply making an observation, and speculating on its possible cause. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:25, 12 January 2012 (EST)

These counterexamples are not adequately rebutted above:

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

:If Relativists are not even going to accept the results of experiments that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they '''''are''''' a waste of money.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

:If you can give examples in your own words, then please do.

24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

:This statement is true also. The dramatic decrease in entropy predicted by Relativity is contrary to the Second Law. No known mechanism offsets that decrease.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::'''re: 15.''' The existence of gravitons was hypothesized in an attempt to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics. General relativity, by itself, does not predict the existence of gravitons. Furthermore, money spent testing a hypothesis that is ultimately not supported is not "wasted" (otherwise, I'd be out of a job)--the knowledge gained in testing the hypothesis allows a better hypothesis to be formulated.

:::'''re: 18.''' General relativity correctly predicted gravitational lensing, the existence of black holes, and the accelerating expansion of the universe. Additionally (and this is the first example that I can come up with off of the top of my head, RSchlafly probably knows a few better ones), relativistic effects must be compensated for to maximize the accuracy of satellite-based GPS systems.

:::'''re: 24.''' Black hole formation results in a net increase in entropy when considering the system as a whole. If you were to consider just the mass of the resultant black hole as a closed system, the degeneracy forces outweigh the net gravitational force significantly enough to prevent collapse into a schwarzchild radius. In just overcoming this by itself (as theoretically happens in super-massive black holes), there would be a massive output of emitted particles (radiation), which would still result in a net increase in the entropy of the system.

:::These counterexamples are not valid. Plain and simple. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T03:48:32Z

RudrickBoucher:

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-01-13T02:44:50Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Heresy hunting */

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyer, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2012-01-13T02:28:29Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions */

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

==Please delete this category==
Can someone please delete this category (or give me the adequate rights): Italian_Cities, it is a duplicate of Italian_Cities_and_Towns. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:07, 27 December 2011 (EST)

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-13T02:25:04Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A few more things */

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2012-01-09T14:26:40Z

RudrickBoucher:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-09T14:11:05Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Previous arguments */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::::: That makes me wonder why there isn't a "Counterexamples to Quantum Mechanics" page here as well. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:11, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-09T14:05:32Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A few more things */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::: I agree that questioning relativity is not taboo. The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics was for observations that caused a modification of general relativity. The biggest physics story of the year was the Italian claim that neutrinos go faster than light, contrary to relativity. Physicists often talk about replacing relativity with some unified field theory or quantum theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:51, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::Hello! Thanks for the comments. And sorry about #24, like I said, the model I gave is slightly idealized b/c I haven't studied the subject in detail. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 07:58, 9 January 2012 (EST)

:::::No problem, I was in a bit of a commenting frenzy anyway. I'm guessing, because you referred to the ideal gas law, that you have some chemistry background?

:::::Also, I've had students throw the second law of thermodynamics at me when I'm trying to explain evolution. The Earth's surface isn't a closed system either because it's constantly receiving energy from the sun--so the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable there as well. The only truly closed system that I can think of is in Washington...and, yes, entropy there is ''always'' increasing! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 9 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-09T04:44:46Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Previous arguments */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::::::I was paid for my research and for the teaching. Although, admittedly, not very well for either (as neither science nor teaching pays particularly well). I retracted the claim on the "15 questions" essay only after you had already edited it--in the name of diplomatically avoiding a pointless edit war. Similarly, I referenced my biological inclination above as a gesture of humility, to admit that my background in physics is relatively limited. On that note, what are your credentials? Have you spent seven years meticulously learning a specific field like I have? Have you published any papers? Are you a member of any professional research societies? Admittedly, I have at least another six years of education to go, but I can legitimately claim some level of expertise in my field. I don't say these things to brag, say them to lend credibility to my arguments. Finally, as I've mentioned before, I was raised Catholic and I spent my first two years of college at a Methodist school--where I did have the privilege of taking an ethics class (and I very much enjoyed it). So please, let's cut the ad hominem attacks and focus on the discussion at hand. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:44, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-09T04:19:24Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A few more things */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)
RudrichBoucher, a profession is something one does to earn money and have a net positive cash flow, while students often invest money in education and often have low earnings or debt accumulation. Perhaps you should consider taking an introductory course in finance so you better understand the concepts of cash flow and investment! :) I would also suggest taking a course in ethics at a Christian university so you no longer claim to be a biologist and then retract that claim like you did at this wiki. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 8 January 2012 (EST)
::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 24: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::Very well said! While I'm in a commenting-frenzy, I'd like to add to your points.

::'''Re: #15.''' It's not a waste of time or money to reject a hypothesis. To quote Enrico Fermi, "If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

::'''Re: #18.''' Relativity HAS led to other [http://curiosity.discovery.com/topic/relativity/discoveries-relativity-made-possible.htm|insights].

::'''Re: #24.''' The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. In the case of stellar black hole formation, gravitational pressure must exceed the sum of the thermal pressure, supplied by ongoing fusion in the stellar core, and the core degeneracy pressure, provided courtesy of the Pauli exclusion principle. Achieving this condition is, necessarily, a very violent event, complete with giant explosions, gamma ray bursts, and spewing jets of super-heated gas. When considering the entirety of the system giving rise to a black hole, and not just the resulting black hole itself, entropy certainly ''does'' increase. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-09T03:32:57Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Previous arguments */

<big>'''For a point-by-point summary of this page, see [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]].'''</big>
 
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

::::: In my opinion, the article is really a list of anomalies and paradoxes, not counterexamples. The anomalies are observations that need some additional explanation, and that may or may not require an adjustment to relativity. The paradoxes seem like contradictions or contrary to common sense, but have explanations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:58, 7 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If someone thinks that Relativity '''''must''''' be true as a matter of logic, then any and all evidence to the contrary is not going to change that view. "Paradox" might be an appropriate term for ostensible contradictions in logic. But the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 7 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: No, it is the term "true as a matter of logic" that is not suitable for observable science. Perhaps your real complaint is with those who push scientific statements as being true as a matter of logic. If so, I suggest renaming the article to "Counterexamples to Einsteinian thinking". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:09, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::: I think at least one major college teaches Relativity as a course in the math department rather than being listed primarily in the physics department.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:28, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::: If the terms "paradox" and "anomaly" are not suitable for observable science, what are they doing on this page? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 17:26, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::::Strictly speaking, all sciences are "observational" sciences; the semantic distinction between observational science and experimental science is arbitrary at best. Even in a tightly-controlled experiment, the goal is still to ''observe'' the outcome of the experiment in order to make some inference about the processes involved. In other words, an experiment is intended as nothing more than an indirect observation of natural phenomena that are not readily directly observable.

::::::::A "paradox", by the most reductive definition, is when the available evidence suggests two contradictory hypotheses. Whereas an "anomaly" is an observation that does not conform to the hypothesis suggested by the previously available evidence. Both of these terms are quite appropriate to use in any scientific or logical context. When a scientist encounters a paradox or an anomaly, it implies that there is a fundamental gap in the theoretical understanding of his or her field. Seeking out evidence to address these gaps allows for scientists to adjust their theoretical models in order to more precisely explain the observed phenomena. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

RudrickBoucher, since we already established that you are not a biologist, shouldn't you say "as someone who likes to pretend to be a biologist". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::Conservative, I have a BS in cell and molecular biology (CMB) from the top undergraduate CMB program in the country, several years of laboratory experience doing developmental biology research, just as many publications (a couple of which, I first-authored), I also have teaching experience in introductory biology (AP biology and college-level intro bio), graduate level course-work in developmental biology, and, as of this coming fall, I will either be a first-year medical student or a developmental biology PhD candidate (I've been accepted into programs for both, but not a combined MD/PhD program just yet). In short, I am allowed to call myself a "biologist" because it is my profession--it may sound pretentious, but it saves on typing. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::::: Of those who credit Einstein for relativity, they often argue that Einstein's approach was superior because he ignored observations and presented relativity as being something that must be true as a matter of logic. The Einstein scholars acknowledge that Lorentz and Poincare had all the relativity formulas before Einstein, but Lorentz and Poincare were not true believers because they conceded that the theory could be disproved by experiment.
::::::: So the case could be made that there is an Einsteinian-relativity-philosophy that is a is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions, that is based on postulates taken on faith, and that ignores experimental evidence. If so, then maybe the page should be explicit about what is being attacked. All real science is based on experimental evidence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:19, 8 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::::RSchlafly, please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that even Einstein considered relativity to be a mathematical approximation. One that precisely, but still somewhat inaccurately, explained the then-available evidence; in a manner similar to the proverbial physicist who, for ease of calculation, treats a horse as a circle. Anybody who has taken more than a year of calculus-based physics (or, even introductory college astronomy), knows the very real limitations of relativity. If anything, these limitations are just as dogmatic as relativity itself. Therefore, the notion that questioning relativity is taboo in intellectual circles (an underlying premise of this page) is patently ridiculous. Poking holes in relativity, and then seeking to explain them, has been one of the great ongoing projects in physics for the past seventy years. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:32, 8 January 2012 (EST)

== A few more things ==

All right, more problems with this article:

<blockquote>
15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.
 18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.
 24. The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics
</blockquote>
15: General relativity ''does not predict gravitons!'' Gravitons are massless spin-two particles predicted by QFT that lead to linear GR. (Though the spirit is different; in QFT, the h's--the metric perturbations--are a tensor representing field strength on a background Minkowski spacetime. In GR these represent curvature in spacetime.)
 18: Untrue--Consider the Dirac equation. It predicted spin, which was not predicted by Schrodinger theory. It also predicted negative energy states (antiparticles), and QFT has been fundamental to particle physics.
 19: Yet another horrible misunderstanding. Consider an ideal gas with N particles. Assume the total number of particles is conserved (it obviously doesn't have to be, but this is an idealized case). First of all, Newtonian gravity also predicts that a star will contract to a point without hydrostatic pressure--due to their mutual gravitational attraction. Should we start a "counterexamples to gravity" page? You've forgotten one thing: ''there's a term in the expression for the entropy that involves thermal energy!!!'' In other words (roughly speaking) the gas "warms up" so that the second law of thermodynamics is not violated. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:43, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2012-01-06T19:13:12Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Previous arguments */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

== Notice of Pending Revision ==

It's been over a week now since the reversion (on 9th December) of several edits I made. Despite my request, now explanation has been posted, in contrast to the explanations I gave for each of my changes. I therefore see it only fit to return the article to the state I left it in.

However, to avoid 'edit wars' I think it only fair to give notification of this, to allow a final chance for justification of the reversion.

The specific changes are:

*Removal of the item: ''''27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.'''' since it is a duplicate of ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass -- does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?''''

*Removal of ''''26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science.'''' After much discussion on this page, it seems generally agreed that there useful devices in existence. (I appreciate that some mention of GPS may be necessary, but a footnote, however valid, cannot justify the presence of the invalid section in the main article to which it is attached. GPS can have it's own separate entry on this page as a counterexample, if need be.)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:35, 31 December 2011 (EST)
*Removal of ''''30. The Ehrenfest Paradox ...'''', ''''31. The Twin Paradox ...'''' and ''''10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle...'''' since these are paradoxes and (as discussed above) are not appropriate to a page of counterexamples. These entries have already been moved to and expanded upon in the main [[Relativity]] page.

--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:26, 17 December 2011 (EST)

::I've now implemented these changes since no objection has been forthcoming to my explaination above, posted in accordance with [[Conservapedia:Editing_etiquette#Etiquette_Rule:|editting etiquette]]. If there are any objections please discuss them here rather than engaging in revert wars. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:36, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:::Sorry, just noticing these comments now. Let's discuss before removing insights from entries.

:::Items 27 and 10 are similar, but not identical. 27 highlights a conflict between Relativity and basic principles of physics; item 10 emphasizes an internal contradiction in the theory that remains unanswered.

:::Item 26 remains unrebutted. Relativity has produced nothing of value.

:::Item 30 and 31 are logical problems which are valid counterexamples, given that Relativity claims to be based on logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 30 December 2011 (EST)

Items 10, 27, and 31 should be taken out because they are just wrong, and make Conservapedia look lazy. Anyone who has learned about relativity from any college-level textbook less than about 40 or 50 years old knows how to do the calculations involving relativistic velocity, momentum, force, and acceleration. Our readers know this, and items 10 and 27 will just leave them scratching their heads about the diligence of Conservapedia. Item 31, the "twin paradox", is also very well known. The fact that something has the word "paradox" in its name doesn't mean that the subject is flawed. Otherwise, we would have to take the Russel paradox too seriously, and perhaps conclude that this: "The next sentence is false. The preceding sentence is true" means that the universe will blow up. The phrase "twin paradox" is simply a name. Everyone knows what is going on. Even Einstein. If it were actually a counterexample, this fact would be well known by now.[[User:JudyJ|JudyJ]] 10:11, 31 December 2011 (EST)

*10: ''The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? '' It applies to the relativistic mass: that is observable in a [[cyclotron]]. So, it is one of those question you may speculate or philosophy all day long, but do the experiment (and the mass), and it is answered.
*27: ''Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions. '' In light of the above, this seems to be wrong.
*30: ''The Ehrenfest Paradox'' interesting paradox, solvable and no counterexample
*31: ''The Twin Paradox'' no counterexample to relativity, it's solved in any physic's course on this subject
*26: ''The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory'' please re-read the archives, they include plenty material on the GPS (though you seem to ignore it)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:36, 31 December 2011 (EST)

On the points 10 and 27 issue, whilst they may or may not be duplicates, may or may not be counterexamples, they're still just plain wrong, reflecting a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of relativity. According to Special Relativity, the inertial mass of a body appears the same to all observers who are in the same inertial frame of reference (i.e. who are moving at the same velocity as each other, which may be different from that of the body being observed). If a force is applied to the body it will produce an acceleration of the same magnitude (though obviously in a different direction) regardless of the direction of the force. The force itself can in no sense be an 'observer' since it has no velocity. For observers in a different non-inertial frame, they will observe a different magnitude of acceleration, but it will still be the same regardless of the direction of the force. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:27, 31 December 2011 (EST)

I deleted #10 and #27. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:06, 1 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]], you've reverted an edit that everyone involved in the discussion other than yourself seems to be agreed upon. Can you please at least attempt to justify your position? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 13:20, 1 January 2012 (EST)

:''deletion of educational information is disfavored on this site; deletions restored'' How can the perpetuation of false information be educational? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)

This entire page is ludicrous. If you don't believe in Einstein's relativity, then do you believe in Galilean relativity? If Einstein's relativity is correct up to small corrections, does it invalidate cultural relativism? Ironically, this page signifies to me that Conservapedia itself is an exercise in relative truth; the idea that individuals are entitled to make up whatever facts are consistent with their preconceptions. [[User:Aram|Aram]] 16:26, 1 January 2012 (EST)

== Relativity breaks down if a [[solenoid]] is traveling at or near the speed of light. ==

As a source for the statement [http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3244279 this discussion] on physicsforum.org is given. Here are all the contributions to this discussion:

{|
!A Dhingra
|The moment the magnetic field is generated, it should take some time to reach some distance. It cannot reach infinity instantly, it should have some speed, and that speed cannot be more than that of light. So let’s say that the newly generated magnetic field, through a current carrying wire, travels with the speed of light. Now for the application of the faraday’s law, let’s bring a magnet near a solenoid, through which initially no current flows, and make the magnet move with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case?

Take another case, when instead of a magnet we have a different circuit containing a solenoid through which current flows when the switch is made on, and this circuit is held stationary moving the other one with the speed of light. Will there be electromagnetic induction observed in this case? What I think is that, as the system without current is moving as fast as the magnetic field … it never gets the chance to cut the magnetic field and cause induction to occur in the solenoid. So there should be no induction. But there is relative motion between the two systems and (also there is NO time varying magnetic field through the moving solenoid,)AND no induced current will be produced ...
so will the induction take place or not...??
if induction does not take place then the principle or relativity goes wrong......
|-
!DaleSpam
|You cannot make a magnet move with the speed of light. It is a physically impossible premise, so you shouldn't be surprised that assuming it leads to contradictions.
|-
!A Dhingra
|... can't it be just a thought experiment like many other paradoxes available....

with that assumption, think about the result.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|Obviously, if you violate the principle of relativity in your question then the answer must be that the principle of relativity is violated. It is just the most basic logic. Non-physical assumptions lead to non-physical conclusions. This says nothing whatsoever about physics, only about your question.
|-
!A Dhingra
|ok........
i agree that the situation is not realistic........
but still i didn't like the fact that one should not think beyond the laws made by humans himself.......
|-
!DaleSpam
|This is elementary logic. If you have any set of axioms (A) which logically imply some result (B) then if your premise is not(B) then you must logically conclude not(A). This is called transposition and is one of the fundamental rules of logic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)

SR logically implies that a solenoid must move slower than light (STL), therefore if you assume that a solenoid can move with the speed of light you must logically conclude that special relativity (SR) is violated. Written in the usual format for logic:
(SR → STL) ↔ (~STL → ~SR)

Whether or not the situation is realistic and whether or not SR is a "law made by humans himself" is actually only a secondary concern. This is primarily an exercise in basic logic. Note that I am agreeing with your OP. Under the stated premise (~STL) you must indeed logically conclude that "the principle of relativity goes wrong" (~SR).
|-
!vector22
|to make the experiment fair you would have to calculate what would happen to the solenoid at half light speed and then go from there.
|-
!netheril96
|If you want to think beyond relativity, invent your own laws of physics. If you want to explain in terms of relativity, then think within relativity.
|-
!A Dhingra
|can you help me go about finding this result......
(considering the magnetic field to be varying with time ...... as it is getting produced ...
|}

How does this discussion support the claim? This source seems to be unsuitable and therefore it should be deleted, and the statement marked again to be unsourced.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:00, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Previous arguments ==

I'm creating a page [[Essay - Counterexamples to relativity points]], the purpose of this is to ensure that arguments are not repeated by people who find the article, not realising that their objections have already been discussed, and removed as part of a cleanup of the talkpage. The page is NOT a place to make points, but a place to see if your objection has already been made, and save everybody time by reading the responses yourself, and then bringing up the objection only if you have a new point to make. Because the numbers for counterexamples change, the page will not include the number of the counterexample, only the text of it. Although I will try to put them in order. I know that to begin with, many old arguments will not be included, but hopefully it will eventually become a very useful resource for those wishing to make contributions to the page. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:29, 4 January 2012 (EST)

: While I appreciate the positive intent behind this idea, I do fear that it risks making Conservapedia look even sillier in this area than it already does. The problem is the implicit suggestion that this new page is in any way 'definitive'. Given that the issues surrounding Einsteinian Relativity have been discussed across the planet for over a century, and that the results of those discussions are available on-line, in textbooks and elsewhere, then it is unlikely that anyone will give a page on Conservapedia very much credence, particularly if it is seen to support this page, which puts forth views that very few with an understanding of the field share.

: The real problem is that the counterexamples page itself is not a genuine encyclopaedia entry, but the personal fiefdom of one contributor with little understanding of the subject matter and a bee in his bonnet about a spurious connection between Einsteinian Relativity and Moral Relativism. Unfortunately that contributor has administrator privileges, which he finds more effective in making his case than resorting to rational argument. Perhaps it would be better if the counterexamples page itself became an essay page, to make absoultely clear that it presents a personal point of view. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 10:06, 5 January 2012 (EST)

:: Anyone who finds Conservapedia silly because of this page will not think it is any sillier because of the new page. For many who see this page, it is a joke, and won't think any less of it because of the new page. The problem with turning this page into an essay is that those who support this page believe that it is not merely a page of personal opinion, but factually accurate. Perhaps I should put a disclaimer at the top of the page then? Something like 'this should not be seen as approving of the counterexamples, but as approval of productive discussion concerning the points'. Also, it should be noted that at the moment, every counterexample listed on the new page have outstanding objections to them, which have not been answered. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:05, 5 January 2012 (EST)

::::I hate to go raining on the parade again here, but science is argued by evidence--it is not enough to produce a counter example and highlight the "god of the gaps". There are paradoxical observations under any established paradigm in any field. This does not mean that the entire paradigm is incorrect, simply that there are gaps in the evidence that must be addressed in order to improve extant models. This is the primary reason that trained scientists find this page silly. There are tons of holes in relativity, just as there were massive holes in Darwin's original theory of natural selection (as a biologist, I am far more familiar with how the latter example has been, quite successfully, addressed), the notion that "there are some discrepancies with theory X, therefore goddidit" is an obvious logical fallacy. Rather than poking holes in an outdated model, it is far more scientific to argue in favor of an alternate model using evidence. The central caveat here, and one that must be carefully beaten out of every experiment, is that evidence cannot be approached with the intention of supporting a particular hypothesis--a model must be built around the evidence, not the other way around. That's why scientists laugh at the term "creation science", science is not about hunting for evidence in support of a pre-formed theory, it is about impartially collecting evidence and then letting said evidence speak for itself.

::::Having said that. I must acknowledge that this article is not explicitly (although, it is implied) about advancing one viewpoint over another--it is simply about highlighting perceived inconsistencies in the theory of relativity. By itself, that is not a ridiculous premise at all. However, because this page is more of an editorial than an academic encyclopedia article, this page itself probably should have been classified as an "essay" to begin with. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 14:13, 6 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Professor values

2011-12-12T23:57:12Z

RudrickBoucher:

There are several things about this page that damage its credibility. It says that no professor who opposed abortion can get tenure, which is plainly not true since many have. One example is the famous conservative blogge Glen Reynolds of Instapundit.

Now professors do have faults -- they can be selfish and even commit murder from time to time (especially Professor Faust). For every possible character flaw there is a professor with it. But as a group professors are more opposed to censorship than any other group in the world (except possibly pornographers?).

And "liberal grading" does not mean giving liberals high grades and conservatives low ones. It means giving everyone a high grade without regard to political orientation or work quality level.

As for [[evolution]]: it would be hard for a biologist who doesn't believe in evolution to get tenure because it is impossible to do first rate research in biology without believing in evolution. For example, suppose you're trying to figure out how molecular motors work. If you believe in intelligent design, you consider all kinds of mechanisms that have no evolutionary pathway.

Then there's calling my edit "inappropriate" without saying what about it is inappropriate-- lgm

I think that it is inappropriate to have "crimes by professors" and "immoral, unethical, and bizarre behavior" in this entry. Either have a separate entry, or remove it entirely. Professors have good values too, they are not all completely immoral people who are self-centered and ignorant. -- Aaronp

Why do my edits keep getting reverted? I made factual edits, removing the absolutes that simply aren't true from the article. I have no problem not editing the rest, because obviously removing "Crimes committed by professors" and "Immoral and Unethical Behavior" from an article on professor values is just wrong, but the edits I made about tenure are factually correct. I have helped multiple tenure boards, and I know for a fact that not every single academic institution in the United states, let alone the world, completely dismisses a candidate based on their views on feminism, abortion, and homosexuality. Mind you, tenure confers essentially complete protection from being prosecuted for any sort of indiscretion, so keeping people with strong biases out of tenure is a good thing. I once saw a review board reject a man for tenure because he accidentally blurted out that "all those kids protesting the war should be forced into service" because they "aren't contributing to society". This was an obvious bias he had, and because it was an extreme one he was rejected for tenure. At the same time, however, I've seen a woman who was criticizing feminist values receive tenure, because she presented her thoughts in a clear, precise, and very educated way. Anyone who criticizes a set of values or an action in a biased or bigoted manner obviously isn't going to receive tenure.

Also, the reason that people who criticize evolution often don't receive tenure is because evolution has almost reached dogma-like acceptance in the scientific community. I don't want to get into a debate about evolution, but because it is so accepted, anyone seen criticizing it without scientific proof is generally regarded as not following scientific method. History may vindicate those people who do criticize evolution now, but until then, people will continue to not receive tenure based on their criticisms.

All I want for this page is to remove the absolutes. Not every institution will outright reject a person for their views on feminism, abortion, or homosexuality. It simply is not true. And because this is supposed to be an educational encyclopedia with conservative values, I believe that the information contained within should be accurate. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

..does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.

:::Maybe it was Blair's suppoort for the Iraq War that got him his lecturing position. [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 19:46, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::: It didn't take long for the [[liberals]] on Wikipedia to delete its entry! It's gone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:03, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Removal of bias ==
The bias that was removed should have been kept in. It was a fair point and was correct.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:55, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:But it wasn't conservative. This isn't liberalpedia. Why is that so hard for you to understand? --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 17:59, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Are you kidding? A fact is a fact. A fair and correct point is not aligned with politcal leanings. Why is that so hard to understand?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:01, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What specifically do you think was fair? The stuff I removed was unjustified liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

"However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeed"
Its not bias, it is fact. It is not valid that professors are more likely to commit crimes (at least the validity has not been proven here) and by removing this section it sounds more and more like opinion as opposed to an encyclopedia entry. I know you wont budge on this though and any attempt in me to argue or revert will be meet with an arbitary block so I'll turn my attention to less volitile entries.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:09, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, something is not a fact just because it is written down somewhere. Liberal journalists that quote liberal studies that are furnished by liberal organizations do not produce fact - they produce nonsense. Please keep your gibberish out of this site. Perhaps you would feel more comfortable talking about your "facts" over at [[Wikipedia]]. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:12, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

AdenJ, people sharing common values do tend to act in similar ways. Ideas do matter. Surely you don't think all the problems in Hollywood are purely coincidental with [[Hollywood values]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

My quibble was not whether ideas or shared values matter, it was that factual and relevant material was removed as bias.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

:Aden, your "facts" were discussed already. We know you can read, so quit playing stupid. --[[User:FrankRingo|FrankRingo]] 18:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Frank.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: AdenJ, people who disrespect the law are more likely to commit crimes. That's logic, and does not require a citation. [[Professor values]] include a disrespect for rule of law, among other things.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Again, and for the last time before I slam my head on the table, I was querying why good stats were removed from this article which show that crime amoung professors is not disproportionate. Apparently its not factual, according to you and Frank. End of discussion.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:08, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

: What statistics are you describing? Merely an estimate of the total number of professors? That doesn't demonstrate anything about proportionate crime.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:14, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:: The stats I cited, which were removed by you, were from a standard statistical source (see the original citation) and the very high number of professors that exist make the isolated examples provided in the article statistically insignificant. It would be interesting to compare relative crime rates for various professions -- then we'd be able to say that professors are more likely or less likely to commit crimes. I spent a lot of time tracking down those stats and was surprised that you removed them because of "liberal" bias. As my contributions to this Talk page show, I felt uncomfortable seeing ungrounded assertions about professors being disproportionately likely to commit crimes. The few examples are incidental and anecdotal -- they are not statistically significant and one cannot use them to justify the conclusion that professors are more likely to commit crimes than others. Plenty of crimes are committed by teachers, pastors, politicians, business people, and so on -- but no evidence has been supplied to show that they commit crimes less often than professors. I believe my statement was taken away not because it is inherently liberal -- it is attitude neutral -- but rather because the data seriously challenged the validity of the premise of the whole article. After a lot of reading on this in support of my since-removed contributions, I would imagine that, taken as a group, professors are much less likely to commit crimes than many other professions. To prove that, I'd have to do more research and document it well, which I don't have the time to do. The same should be done if one wanted to document that they are MORE likely to commit crimes, but for now those assertions in the article remain unsupported except by isolated examples. That is a very bad example to set for any students, home-schooled or not. My contributions attempted to raise the research standard of the article and I believe the data I supplied were inappropriately removed. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 20:48, 21 April 2008 (CDT)

: I looked for, but could not find, the edit you're describing above. But note that the frequency of crime is not the only issue; the nature of the crimes also matters. Also, it's meaningless to compare wealthy, pampered, highly educated professors to the general population in terms of crime. Any comparison would have to factor in demographic, privilege, and background info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:: If it is, as you say, "meaningless to compare wealthy... professors to the general population in terms of crime," then we should remove the entire block of "Crimes by Professors." The number cited is incredibly small, compared with the total number of professors out there, and unless you are positing that they commit crimes with disproportionate frequency (which the article seems to be implying), then it really doesn't have a purpose. We might as well start sections with anecdotal evidence about crimes for several professions. Actually, crime would be the easiest of the categories mentioned in the article to prove. Bullying, etc. may well take place, and some professors are true jerks, but there is not official documentation about instances of promoting immorality, bias against conservatives in classrooms, etc. Anyway, the problem I see with this article is that readers may notice that there is no support of the major assertions except for a handful of examples, some from other countries, one more than 25 years old, and one about a professor being fined $50 for mooning a child. I would suggest that we find documentation to support this article's assertions, call the article an editorial, or delete it entirely. If we look at the nature of the crimes, as you suggest, there are some murders, but also marijuana possession, mooning, attempting to defraud a hospital trust, stalking, possession of child porn, and others -- but not even close to what happens in one major city in one day. Attempting to smear an entire profession based on these examples and no real data is not scholarship. Conservapedia can do better and it should, if it is to be taken seriously. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 1:48, 22 April 2008 (CDT).

::: You didn't respond to my points. The nature of the crimes is as important as their volume, perhaps more so. And, no, we're not going to limit ourselves here to what is recognized by [[liberal]] newspapers and censored journals. Conservapedia reaches beyond what is already widely available, and we're not going to fall for the [[deliberate ignorance]] that plagues less useful resources.

::: Finally, your statement that "some professors are true jerks" obviously misses the point. The problem is not the "jerks", but the "values".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:56, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I thought I'd addressed the main points you'd asked about, but I'll try again. Frequency of crime is indeed an issue if this article is trying to assert that professors commit crimes proportionally more than those in other specific professions, other professions in general, the general public -- you name it. To prove that they commit more crimes than other groups based on the tiny number of examples is ridiculous. Yes, frequency is not the only issue and the nature of the crimes also matters. But as my comment above shows, the crimes cited in the article, as bad as they are, are not all as bad as, say, murder. Besides murder, there is pot possession, the mooning of a child, stalking, possession of child porn, attempting to defraud a hospital trust. So, to the extent that all crime is bad, then all of those are bad things and I trust that the perps got their just desserts. But are those crimes any more heinous than those committed by any number of people of all kinds of professions, by the rich, by the poor, by politicians, etc. If we do factor in "demographic... and other background info," how would the picture look? Well, we don't really know, do we, because we know of no such studies, if there are any out there. So until we have some kind of actual data to go on, this article should remain silent on the issue (or not exist) or else it will look to readers more like an editorial rather than an encyclopedia article based on factual sources. You'd also asked about the source for my stats. I searched for a long time to find good, reliable numbers regarding professors and other employees in colleges and universities in the United States. Here is the quote you removed, along with the citation:
::::: "However, because the professoriate is so large and varied (more than 1,200,000 in the United States alone, in public and private institutions) it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than others groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds.[http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list]
:::: Looking at it again, I should have been clearer by adding something to the effect that "because the professoriate is so large, it would not be valid to conclude that this group of professionals is disproportionately more likely than other groups or the general public to commit crimes or other misdeeds based on a small sample of reported crimes unless the group and its crime rates are compared with those of other professionals or the general public." I also should have place the stats citation right after I mentioned the number of professors. The source supports that information and not the rest of the sentence. While I could have been clearer, the statement should not have been removed because you were "cleaning out liberal bias." What is liberal about that statement? I was trying to make the article more substantial and accurate. There are clearly claims in the article that are unsupported and therefore in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments, and I was doing research to find accurate data about the population under discussion. It was only a start and I was enjoying the research, but having my contribution yanked was like getting an unwarranted suckerpunch. In a sense, you did what you accuse professors of doing: you bullied someone you thought had an opposing point of view. Trying to verify facts and add documentation is neither liberal nor conservative - it is research. [[User:CPlantin|Cplantin] 22:51:48, 23 April 2008 (CDT)

== [[Debate:Are Liberals fundamentally evil?|Liberal]] professor [[PZ Myers]] just linked to this article ==

[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/a_temporary_palliative.php Here]. Be on the watch for vandals. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== this article is ridiculous ==

it's kind of funny actually [[User:NRupert|NRupert]] 13:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal fluff ==

The statement that "it appears that intelligent people sometimes hold these values" is [[liberal fluff]]. It's meaningless. Intelligent people "sometimes" hold almost any value, no matter how wanton or absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:57, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Recent edit==
As much as I dislike this entire article, I restrained myself and only removed a section lacking a citation. The citations are generally well groomed in this article, so let's keep up the same standards on the whole thing. IMHO, this is and should remain a highly opinionated essay ONLY, though, not an article. What will the liberals say to us next if they see this? I'm an ashamed conservative to have to read this.[[User:Bender2982|Bender2982]] 18:13, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

: Invoking "shame" is trademark [[liberal style]], Bender. I doubt you're fooling anyone here by claiming you're a conservative. By the way, I added a reference for the material you removed, a reference that took me less than one minute to find. You could have done likewise. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Actually, you added only One reference to One of the points. But in doing so you went from saying, "Some" boards "have been known to", to the more unequivocal, "Faculty boards block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:" Unless you are going to once again provide the word, "Some", as a moderate you are going to need to provide more than one reference to make a blanket and unqualified statement. Oh, and the reference you used said that they took his position into consideration for their decision. A far cry from stating that faculty boards block the granting, etc. as if it was a written policy. A phrase more in line with your example would be, "Some faculty boards have used the following criteria in blocking the granting of a tenured professorship..." --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

== Blatant factual error ==

In the article, Alexander Downer is quoted as being a 'liberal' politician who received an academic position. Unfortunately, despite being a previously prominent member of the Liberal Party of Australia, in Australia this means something quite different. Alexander Downer was one of the most conservative politicians in Australia in the last decade. As a matter of personal opinion, I'd say he'd be the 5th-most conservative mainstream politican in Australia.

: What are his positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control? The way you phrase your comment, I'd guess he is a [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 29 October 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, the Liberal Party in Australia is actually a conservative party. Liberal in this case means free-market liberal. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 20:15, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::: If someone is for government funding of abortion, then he's a liberal. The entry makes no assertion about a particular party name.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:17, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::The problem is, Aschlafly, that ''conservative'' in the USA doesn't mean the same as ''conservative'' elsewhere, not least other English-speaking countries. In the USA, largely the same set of people are conservative in both social and economic views. In the UK, Australia and New Zealand, however, the two things are pretty much independent. Taking your anti-abortion example, there are MPs opposed to abortion in all three main parties in the UK - their views on that subject are completely unconnected to their economic views. Likewise, civil partnerships and other social issues.
::::As far as the text in the article goes, the sensible thing is just to delete the word liberal. You can't call someone like Alexander Downer or Tony Blair liberal. Downer was very much a conservative in economic policy and Blair was socially conservative, bringing in a great many laws to restrict perfectly harmless activities. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 16:53, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::::HSpalding, your assumptions are both offensive and based on the untruth that Mr Schlafly is unaware of conditions in the UK. He is very much aware of differences between our two countries, and his insights on these are extremely instructive. You would be well advised not to jump to conclusions, on this and other matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:25, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Doctor values? ==

Please could someone explain in what way the long list of crimes committed by people who happen to be professors has any connection at all to the values of the huge majority of professors who are decent people?

If you want to be consistent, why not start a page called Doctor Values, headed by Harold Shipman. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 19:49, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: see my page [Value Systems] for similar articles , add Doctor Values by all means [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:04, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== David Ross liberal parody/hoax? ==
The most recent addition about some Dr. David Ross might be a hoax. Since he supposedly has appeared on BBC several times I should be able to find something about him. I have not. Unless someone can verify it, I think it should be removed as liberal parody/hoax. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 07:05, 23 December 2008 (EST)
:Very well spotted, Rick. Also 'Dav Ross' (no-one called David is nicknamed 'Dav') - there is a character in the BBC sci-fio series 'Dr Who' called Davros. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:07, 23 December 2008 (EST)

== 100 German Professors Accused of Accepting Bribes For Degrees ==

[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html]

An appropriate inclusion for the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: Absolutely. What a story that is!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

::It is shocking, isn't it? Added. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:14, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

== Lenski ==

The entries on Lenski are basically the author's opinions.--[[User:SBosell|SBosell]] 21:39, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

== Crimes and Unusual Behaviors ==

Considering that there are over 2 million people employed in post-secondary education, it is not at all shocking that one can dredge up a couple dozen instances of illegal or bizarre behavior. Both sections in the article ought to be removed. There may be statistics for people in academia having the values that this article purports them to have, but there definitely are not statistics mentioned on this page showing that they are prone to criminal behavior, but merely misleading anecdotes.

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382043/Academic-hosted-house-party-girl-15-died-overdose-wrote-report-concluded-Cannabis-good-you.html]

== Suggested move ==

This article should be moved to "Professorial values". The current title is bad grammar. You would talk of "Judicial values" rather than "Judge values", of "Political values" rather than "Politician values", of "Janitorial values" rather than "Janitor values" and of "Arboreal values" rather than "Tree values" (although I am not sure that trees could be said to have values). Does anyone oppose such a move? --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 18:55, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:I'm not sure if I agree. For example I take issue with your political values vs politician values example. I'm not an expert on grammar by any means, but if I were to hear "political values" - i would think you'd be talking about someone's political ideology. Whereas politician values would specifically talk about politicians' values. Also the article title is a play off "Hollywood values" - which is a compound noun (I think. maybe? Well ... it's two nouns) just like this article, whereas political values would by adjective noun.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:22, 10 May 2011 (EDT)
:: You make a good point about "Political values". I think that if one was writing about values held by politicians the best title would probably be "Politicians' values". Likewise, another option for this article would be "Professors' values" (although I prefer "Professorial values" because I think it is slightly more accurate). --[[User:KimbaTWL|KimbaTWL]] 23:26, 10 May 2011 (EDT)

=="Bestiality" section==

There are deviants in every profession. I would say that in six years of college, I have yet to encounter a professor who endorses bestiality. Due to the inherent risk of zoonotic infection, most of the professors in my field would probably be pretty strongly opposed to bestiality. As such, I have removed the "bestiality" section.

Furthermore, part of a professor's job is to say provocative things and investigate (and even defend) controversial positions--it encourages students to think critically about their own assumptions. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:00, 6 December 2011 (EST)
:[[Peter Singer]] is an example. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:48, 6 December 2011 (EST)

::There are outliers in any group. By that same logic [[Newt Gingrich]] could be used as evidence that conservative values support adultery. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:57, 12 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Professor values

2011-12-07T04:00:26Z

RudrickBoucher:

Professor values

2011-12-07T03:49:00Z

RudrickBoucher: removed "bestiality" section, see talk page for comment

'''Professor values''' refer to the common value system embraced by a large percentage of [[professor]]s, just as [[Hollywood values]] refers to the common value system of many in [[Hollywood]] and the entertainment industry.
Professor values are currently one of the most prevalent forms of [[liberal]] indoctrination.

An extremely high percentage of professors disagree with [[conservative]] principles, but very few replace them with the discredited philosophy of [[postmodernism]].<ref>"90 percent of United States professors called themselves liberal or moderate.[http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2/]</ref> Professors' common value system typically includes [[atheism]], [[antichristian|antichristian politics]], [[censorship]], [[socialism]], unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge (for example, the dogmatic promotion of the theory of [[evolution]]<ref>For example, a $100,000 "environmental" prize was awarded for work on a [[politically correct]] "theory of convergent evolution." [http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2008/4/4/briefBiologyProfAwardedEnvironmentalAchievementPrize]</ref>), [[liberal]] beliefs, [[liberal grading]], [[liberal bias]],<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2005/08/26/johnson</ref> anti-patriotism, lack of productivity, [[bullying]] or discouraging [[conservative]] students (for example, homeschoolers),<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032101451.html</ref><ref>http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/488/NCliberalbiasagnstcons060104.htm</ref> and promotion of sexual immorality.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2001/oct_2001_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/1998/october_1998_1.html</ref>
In a [[Zogby]] poll, 58% of [[Americans]] said that the bias of professors is a serious problem, while 39% said it is a "very serious" problem.<ref name="zogby">http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1334</ref> The survey demonstrated further that "an overwhelming majority also believe that job security for college professors leaves them less motivated to do a good job than those professors who do not enjoy a tenured status - 65% said they believe non-tenured professors are more motivated to do a good job in the classroom."<ref name="zogby" /> One study in 2008 found that "[[Texas]] university professors overwhelmingly favor
[[Democratic]] candidates in their campaign contributions."<ref>http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5753471.html</ref>

Professors rarely engage in wrongdoing while completing research. "About 1,000 potential incidents of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in scientific research go unreported every year, according to a survey that suggests such misconduct is far more prevalent than suspected. ... 22 percent was by a professor or senior scientist."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYFanemP24yM&refer=home</ref>

{{cquote| There is no place on earth so close-minded as the modern University. The lack of diversity of thought is unmatched anywhere on earth. <ref>[http://twitter.com/#!/THEAtheistAnti/status/68067486800678912 The Atheist Antidote]</ref>}}

== Poor performance and often failing to meet the needs of society ==

Presently, there appears to be a higher education bubble that will burst.<ref>
*[http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/04/higher_education Higher education bublle]***[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2011/04/05/the-higher-education-bubble/ Forbes - Higher education bubble]
*[http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/the-college-solution/2011/05/03/higher-education-bubble-will-burst Higher education bubble will burst - U.S. News and World Report]
</ref> In addition, college is clearly not delivering the goods in terms of intellectual development for a large percentage of its students. An American study found that forty-five percent of students achieved no significant improvement in their critical thinking, reasoning or writing skills during the first two years of college. After four years, 36 percent displayed no significant increases in these so-called "higher order" thinking skills.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html Study of college education and critical thinking skills]</ref> Students, particularly those who made poor curriculum choices, are increasingly angry that college does not adequately prepare them for the marketplace and leaves them with a pile of debt.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2011/04/05/the-higher-education-bubble/ Forbes - Higher education bubble]</ref>

==Politicizing Hiring==

Faculty boards have been known to (on multiple occasions) block the granting of a tenured professorship to candidates for tenure who:

* criticize the [[theory of evolution]]<ref>"As reported last week, two members of the department that denied tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University (ISU) have publicly admitted that Gonzalez's work on intelligent design played a role in his denial of tenure." [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/iowa_state_avoids_key_question.html]</ref>
* criticize [[feminism]]
* criticize [[abortion]]
* oppose the [[homosexual agenda]]
* criticize the [[liberal bias]] in [[academia]] itself
* profess a [[Christian]] faith
* endorse the mere ''investigation'' of [[Intelligent Design]]

For example, professors at [[Washington University]] wore white armbands to protest an award of an honorary degree to [[Phyllis Schlafly]], a noted [[conservative]], in an act of political partisanship and utter unprofessionalism.<ref>http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1279565&sectionID=1</ref> At the [[University of Chicago]], more than one hundred professors signed a letter to protest a proposal to honor [[conservative]]-leaning [[Nobel Prize]]-winning colleague [[Milton Friedman]].<ref>http://bourdaghs.com/blog.html?p=484</ref>

Politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions. Examples include:

* [[Al Gore]]<ref>Beginning early in 2001, "Gore will be [at UCLA] to develop a new curriculum for family-centered community building, a multidisciplinary approach that brings together authorities from such fields as education, business and public policy to work on problems that ail our society and affect our children. ... He also will be teaching at three other universities - Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro and Fisk University in Nashville - in addition to his teaching and research work at UCLA." [http://spotlight.ucla.edu/special-guests/al-gore_teach/]</ref>
*[[Alexander Downer]]<ref>Downer is so pro-[[abortion]] that, as Foreign Minister of Australia, he "asked for a review of the government's ban on funding for abortion services in other countries."[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51731.php]</ref>
*[[Michael Dukakis]]
*[[Gary Hart]]
*[[Bob Kerrey]]
*[[John Edwards]]<ref>UNC-Chapel Hill named him as director of a new "Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity." [http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/feb05/edwards020405.html]</ref>
*[[Tony Blair]]<ref>Blair was given a prestigious visiting lectureship.</ref>
*[[Tom Kean]]

==Crimes and Alleged Crimes by Professors and Former Professors==
*A University of Alabama [[biology]] professor, [[Amy Bishop]], was arrested for shooting three fellow faculty members after being denied tenure. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,585682,00.html</ref>Bishop has been described by her students as "a [[socialist]]".<ref>[http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=392617&page=1 ratemyprofessors.com]</reF>

*A Goucher College professor, Leopold Munyakaz, is "accused of genocide in his native Rwanda [and was] arrested on suspicion of being in the United States illegally, U.S. immigration authorities said."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/05/AR2009020504117.html</ref>

*Brandon Millay, 41, a professor at Owensboro Community & Technical College, was indicted on Dec. 2, 2008, on steroid distribution charges.<ref>http://www.news25.us/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=10071?</ref>

*Retired Bucknell University professor Jack Harclerode pled guilty on Dec. 1, 2008, on 20 felony counts of child pornography for having 245 images of child pornography on his computer and a portable hard drive. He faced a maximum sentence of 140 years (life without parole) in state prison.<ref>http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_11119182</ref>

*The head of the Economics Department at Bard College, 54-year-old Professor Kristie Feder, was arrested on drug charges on November 14, 2008 "after State Police found 16 marijuana plants growing in her home ... ranging in size from eighteen inches to seven feet."<ref>http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/arrested_1258699___article.html/charges_professor.html</ref>

* Sociology professor Hassan Diab was arrested for his involvement in the 1980 bombing of a synagogue which killed four. <ref>http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081113/diab_arrest_081113/20081113?hub=TopStories</ref>

* A college professor accused of intercepting the e-mail of a student with whom he had an affair pleaded not guilty to the charges. Stephan Grzeskowiak, 34, entered the plea. A federal grand jury indicted the former assistant professor of marketing on five counts of intercepting electronic communications and one count of computer fraud. He is accused of intercepting e-mails and instant messages on a computer used by the woman in May 2007.<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-professor-hacking,0,2077856.story</ref>

* "Vanderbilt University professor James J. Lang was arrested [on a] Friday evening in Fairview on a charge of receipt of child pornography."<ref>http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080913/NEWS03/809130338/1017/news01</ref>

* Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor Jeffrey Hunker, 51, "was charged with drunken driving three times in eight days" in August 2008 and, as a result, prosecutors asked the judge to imprison him. He had worked in the Clinton Administration and was driving his new BMW when stopped for the third time.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,412801,00.html</ref>

* University of Iowa political science professor "Arthur H. Miller, 66, [was] accused of demanding sexual favors from students in exchange for better grades .... He was arrested on four counts of bribery, a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison ...."<ref>http://iowaindependent.com/3876/ui-mired-in-another-sex-scandal</ref> After being released without bail, Miller then disappeared and police wasted thousands of dollars looking for him.<ref>http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080822/NEWS/27671323/0/FRONTPAGE</ref> Later his body was found in a park. "He died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound."<ref>http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/NEWS/80826009/-1/LIFE04</ref>

* Arkansas Tech University chemistry professor Albert Snow, 33 years old, was sentenced to 10 years in jail "on a charge he stalked a person he believed was a teenage girl on the Internet ... Snow was arrested in January 2007 after showing up at a Russellville apartment complex where police say he expected to meet a 15-year-old girl."<ref>http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=8803789</ref>

* At Northern Kentucky University, language and literature professor Sally Jacobsen incited some of her students to vandalize a pro-life display by Northern Right to Life, the campus pro-life group. Jacobsen herself also participated in the vandalism, which involved destroying rows of white crosses symbolizing the graves of aborted children. Jacobsen justified the vandalism as free speech, stating, "I did, outside of class during the break, invite students to express their freedom-of-speech rights to destroy the display if they wished to." Jacobsen was unrepentant until given the choice of facing criminal charges of theft, criminal mischief and criminal solicitation or apologizing. She chose the latter and also paid Northern Right to Life for damage to the display. Jacobsen was suspended by the university and subsequently retired.<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/state3207.html</ref>

* College of New Jersey adjunct professor of engineering Bruce R. McKenna, 43, "surrendered to authorities after allegedly having sexually explicit conversations with an undercover officer posing as a teenage girl." He was "charged with six counts of attempting to endanger the welfare of a child, six counts of attempted sexual contact, sexual assault and attempted luring. ... Before McKenna was arrested, the situation escalated to the point where the professor was allegedly trying to meet with a 13-year-old girl."<ref>http://www.nj.com/news/gloucester/local/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1218698712309020.xml&coll=8</ref>

* A [[South Korea]]n court sentenced a former university art professor to 18 months in jail for forging her [[US]] degree certificates, officials said. The Seoul District Criminal Court found Shin Jeong-Ah guilty of forging undergraduate and master's degrees from the [[University of Kansas]] and [[Yale University]] to secure a job at Seoul's Dongguk university.<ref>http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCfPQ1_mqM2VaXzQUSy-mXwQIvXQ</ref>

* [[Villanova University]] professor Edward R. Ritter was arrested on March 21, 2008, and charged with selling marijuana to undercover police officers, and a subsequent search of his home uncovered 19 bags of marijuana.<ref>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080322_Villanova_professor_arrested_on_drug_charges.html</ref>

* Kansas State University English professor Thomas Murray was a popular teacher, but he was convicted of murdering his ex-wife with 17 stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head. She "was found dead in her bedroom atop a dresser."<ref name="ctv">http://www.courttv.com/trials/murray/backgrounder_ctv.html</ref> Professor Murray had written several books, including "The Language of Sadomasochism."<ref name="ctv" /> He did not testify in his defense and spoke only at sentencing, where he called the state's case a "fairy tale."<ref>http://www.kansaspublicradio.org/newsstory.php?itemID=5892</ref>

* Shortly after the end of the school year and his contract, Marshall University Psychiatry associate professor John M. Adams burglarized and murdered Bobby Burns on July 2, 2003, and then kidnapped two women and forced them to drive him across the Ohio River.<ref>http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/07/29/loc_ohprofessor29.html</ref>

* University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian pled guilty to "aiding a terrorist group" and was "sentenced to 57 months in prison."<ref name="nysun">http://www.nysun.com/article/72228</ref><ref>http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=7961089&nav=menu577_2_1</ref> He then "spent more than a year in civil contempt after refusing to appear before two grand juries investigating Islamic charities in Northern Virginia."<ref name="nysun" />

* Claremont McKenna College visiting professor Kerri Dunn was sentenced to a year in state prison after she was found guilty of staging a phony [[hate crime]], in which she "spray-painted her car with racist and anti-Semitic slurs and then reported a hate crime on campus."<ref>http://www.knbc.com/education/3998600/detail.html</ref>

* University of Hawaii professor Marc Fossorier was arrested and later convicted and sentenced to one year in jail for attempting a sex crime with a girl apparently only 15 years old.<ref>http://kgmb9.com/main/content/view/4582/40/</ref>

* A [[New Jersey]] Cumberland County College professor "was arrested on charges of harassment, trespassing and stalking."<ref>http://www.thedailyjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NEWS01/80305019/1002</ref>

* University of Central Florida political science professor Michael Shawn Reichert was arrested for having "a stash of more than 100 child pornography pictures on his work computer, ... plus three pornographic movies."<ref>http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_local_orlandocrime/2007/07/ucf-professor-a.html</ref>

* [[University of Wisconsin]] adjunct professor Victor M. Zamudio-Taylor resigned after being charged with viewing child-pornography in a campus computer laboratory.<ref>http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/19/uwmilwaukee_professo.php</ref>

* Concordia University professor Valery Fabrikant shot and killed four other professors in 1992. <ref>http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2008/01/25/qc-valeryfabrikant0125.html</ref>

* A [[British]] university professor was jailed for ten months when convicted of plotting to defraud a hospital trust. <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010626/ai_n14398964</ref>

* [[French]] [[Marxist]] [[structuralist]] [[philosopher]] Professor [[Louis Althusser]] (1918-1990) killed his wife in 1980 and was afterwards confined to a psychiatric hospital.

* Professor Daniel Storm, of the University of Washington, flushed 4 liters of the flammable solvent ethyl ether down the sink, rather than pay the safe disposal fees. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Oesterle said that his using an axe to open the containers was particularly dangerous because a spark could easily have ignited the ether. <ref>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003607035_uwprof08m0.html</ref>

* An Associate Professor at Youngstown State University was locked up and fined $50 after baring his buttocks in front of children at a county fair. <ref>http://www.thejambar.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=38283b71-1223-4e85-929f-ba0f932d5366</ref>

* Philosophy professor [[Abimael Guzman]] of the National University of San Cristobal de Huamanga in [[Peru]] founded the bloodthirsty [[Shining Path]] organization, one of the most violent terrorist groups of recent decades.

* A childcare lecturer at Athlone Institute of Technology, [[Ireland]], was convicted of sexual assault while on a trip to [[Amsterdam]]. Despite this, AIT let him keep his job - until the crime was exposed in the local media.<ref>http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0415/ireland/mhojqlidcwid/</ref>

* A lecturer in sexual health at the University College of Medicine, [[Cardiff]], [[United Kingdom]] was fined £3,000 for child pornography offenses. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/1497151.stm</ref>

* Professor Antonio Lasagna of the ultra-liberal [[Yale]] university was convicted of child pornography and of molesting a child. The crimes were committed on campus.<ref>http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=359</ref>

* University of Tennessee Physics professor J. Reece Roth was found guilty of passing U.S. Air Force secrets to [[China]] and [[Iran]]. The jury concluded he was guilty on 18 counts of conspiracy, fraud, and violating the Arms Export Control Act. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/professor_secrets/2008/09/03/127312.html Tenn. Professor Guilty of Passing Military Secrets] AP, September 3, 2008</ref>

* University of Georgia professor George Zinkhan shot and killed his wife and two others at a community theatre in Athens, Georgia, then was found dead a few days later.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/world/university-professor-kills-three-in-us-20090426-aj34.html</ref>

* A hundred German professors were investigated for accepting bribes in exchange for helping students get their doctoral degrees. One professor confessed to accepting more than 200,000 euros because he needed to renovate his mansion. <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1918153,00.html</ref>

==Immoral, Unethical, or Bizarre Behavior==

*April 2011, [[University of Iowa]] professor Ellen Lewin who studies same-sex relationships was upset by an email from a campus [[Republican]] group. She hit reply-all on her email with the comment "F--- you, Republicans." <ref>[http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-04-21/news/29476765_1_conservative-group-email-iowa-professor Iowa professor, Ellen Lewin, under fire for vulgar email telling college Republicans: 'F--- YOU!', NYDaily News, April 21, 2011]</ref>

*In 2009, CCSU [Cen. Conn. State University] student John Wahlberg gave an in-class presentation on gun control, pointing out that if students were permitted to carry concealed weapons on campus, school shootings could be more easily stopped. Wahlberg's professor, Paula Anderson, complained to campus police, who interrogated him about the location of all his firearms. <ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2198172/posts</ref>

*Arthur Butz, professor of electrical engineering at [[Northwestern University]], is a prominent [[Holocaust denial|Holocaust denier]]. His most infamous book is ''The Hoax of the Twentieth Century'', one of the first major works of Holocaust denial written in [[English]].<ref>''[http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/butz.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=2&item=butz Arthur Butz]'' Extremism in America. [[ADL]]</ref>

*A Texas Southern University professor was investigated for allegedly plagiarizing his grant proposal. <ref>[http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6085039.html]</ref>

*The President of the University of Texas-Pan American is under investigation after allegations that she [[Plagiarism|plagiarized]] her 1974 dissertation. <ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jigNGLtg9PtFNelXVdVdNFVfb48wD943SDH03</ref>.

* An [[Iowa]] community college [[president]] resigned after publication of a photo that appeared to show him pouring beer into a young woman's [[mouth]]. But the [[school]]'s board of trustees approved a [[severance package]] that officials said was [[value]]d at about $400,000 plus benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413101,00.html</ref>

* A Kansas university professor, Fort Hays State University debate coach William Shanahan, came "under fire after a video showing him mooning a room full of students and faculty during a heated debate found its way onto YouTube." He "is shown on the video in a profane, in-your-face argument with his counterpart from the University of Pittsburgh ...."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,403781,00.html Kansas Professor in Trouble for Mooning Incident</ref>

*Emory University History Professor of History [[Michael Bellesiles]], a [[gun control]] advocate, wrote a book entitled ''Arming America, The Origins of a National Gun Culture'' (2000). Gary Wills gave it a glowing review in ''The New York Times'', but admitted later that "I was took. The book is a fraud."<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/guests/s_501644.html ''Reports of the 2nd Amendment's death have been greatly exaggerated ...''] Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Apr. 8, 2007.</ref> Bellesiles resigned from his position as Professor of History when an independent committee of scholars examined his work and concluded that "his scholarly integrity is seriously in question."<ref>http://hnn.us/articles/1069.html</ref>

*According to one columnist, 88 Duke professors -- more than 10 percent of the Duke professorial faculty -- endorsed and published an advertisement hurtful to the 3 students who had been wrongly accused of rape during a lacrosse team party, which "helped create the lynch-mob atmosphere."<ref>http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/duke__who_wont_pay_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm</ref>

* When student Rebecca Beach circulated an email at Warren Community College in New Jersey disclosing that decorated Iraq war hero Lt. Col. Scott Rutter would be visiting, English professor John Daly replied: "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." Young America's Foundation later placed Beech on Fox News's "Hannity and Colmes" to expose this and other intolerant e-mail. The resulting outrage ultimately forced Daly to resign and for the president to issue an apology, stating that faculty would now be required to undergo free-speech sensitivity training from now on.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47461</ref>

*[[Ward Churchill]] was fired from the University of Colorado for fabricating his research and for plagiarizing the work of others. He had falsely claimed to be of Native American descent in applying for the post. Previously, he had infamously insulted the victims of 9/11 as 'Little Eichmanns.'<ref>http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html</ref>

*[[Richard Lenski]] of Michigan State University was rude and demeaning when replying to a member of the public who asked about his research.

* When challenged to provide data, professors who push evolutionism on the public evade the question <ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog#Lead_author_won.27t_answer_simple.2C__basic_questions</ref>

*Madonna Constantine, a Columbia University professor claimed she was the victim of racism in the fall of 2007 when a noose was found on her office door. She was later fired for plagiarizing the work of other professors and even her own students. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/plagiarism.professor/</ref>

*Vulgar and viciously bigoted anti-religion (mainly Christianity) University of Minnesota Morris professor and blogger [[Paul Zachary Myers|PZ Myers]] infamously raised the hackles of Catholics by stating his desire to desecrate a Holy Communion wafer (viewed by Catholics as the Body of Christ).<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref> The resultant outcry from Catholics resulted in the university removing all links to Myers' blog from their website.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> Myers has also stated that he is looking forward to the death of George W. Bush so he can travel to Texas and urinate on Bush's grave.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/02/nooooooo_1.php</ref>

*Thirty-two hundred educators, most of them [[professors]], signed a letter supporting unrepentant domestic [[terrorist]] and fellow professor [[William Ayers]]. They claimed Ayers' bombing of the [[Pentagon]] and other [[government]] buildings, his direct involvement in at least three [[deaths]], were just "[[history]]." Notable signers included Professor Rashid Khalidi (No. 5), known for his call to destroy Israel, and the above-mentioned Ward Churchill (No. 814). George Leef, director of research for the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Raleigh, N.C., said, "History should be important to [[teachers]]." <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/ More Than 3,000 Academics Sign Pro-Ayers Petition] Fox News, October 22, 2008</ref>

*Professors engage in [[grade inflation]], giving their students artificially high grades—whether they deserve them or not. In addition, classes have been dumbed down at most universities and require much less work than previously.

*On August 7, 2009, the above-mentioned PZ Myers visited Answers in Genesis' Creation Museum in Kentucky with a large group of students. During the visit, the 52-year-old eagerly climbed atop a saddled kiddie dinosaur meant for souvenir pictures of children 12 and under. To complete his buffoonery, PZ borrowed a cowboy hat.<ref>http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/08/16/children-and-the-creation-museum/</ref><ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/53237252.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ</ref><ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQQl2TMrgbM</ref>

*A [[Boston University]] professor was dismissed after sexually harassing a colleague and several students. In his defense, he claimed his medication made him do it.<ref>http://www.ssristories.com/show.php?item=2793</ref>

==Are Professor Values a Crime Against Humanity?==
*[[Time magazine]]'s Atomic deacon [[William G. Pollard]] has pointed out how professors victimize students, robbing them from experiencing the supernatural and transcendent world (i.e., [[God]]):

<blockquote>
"Throughout the whole wide range and diversity of human experience, with the sole exception of the West in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the world of nature has been alive with, and immersed within, a supernatural world which everywhere made contact with it, although was transcendent to it. It is this whole dimension of reality which the scientific age has lost the capacity to experience or know. An age such as ours which has lost a genuine capacity for knowing and responding to some great segment of reality is actually, without knowing it, in a dark age.... We really have lost a genuine capacity which the rest of mankind has possessed and actively exercised, and we have become a people trapped and in bondage within the prison of space, time, and matter....'''It is primarily the business of the university...to maintain the imprisonment of our time. It saddens me to see a new generation being victimized by this all pervasive spirit of the epoch."<ref> [http://books.google.com/books?id=VpafCAIMCowC ''Faith and Knowledge''], Douglas Sloan, [[Westminster John Knox Press]], 1994, ISBN 0664228666, ISBN 9780664228668, 272 pages, page 194 </ref>
</blockquote>

== Atheist and evolutionist Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course - satire ==

Please see: [[Essay: Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course|Professor PZ Myers fails his applied biology course]]

{{Liberalism}}

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

==Sources==
* [http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_178.asp?referrer=list National Center for Educational Statistics, "Table 178, Historical Summary of faculty, students, degrees, and finances in degree-granting institutions: Selected years, 1869-70 through 2005-06"]

==Links==
[http://liberal-education.com Liberal-education.com] A user created list of professors with liberal bias, highlighting examples of liberal bias in the classroom.

[[Category:Academics]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Talk:Adult stem cells

2011-11-28T02:18:55Z

RudrickBoucher:

This article needs a category, but editing is locked. Might I suggest Category:Biology to one who can edit? [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 14:55, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:Article makes it seem like embryonic stem cells have been led to more medical discoveries than adult stem cells. This is precisely opposite to what I've been led to believe. Can someone help me source this?

This article is factually inaccurate. I will re-write it. Please let me know if there are any points that I need to clarify. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 16:03, 27 November 2011 (EST)

I have edited the article to bring it in line with current research. I will add references later tonight, I need to eat some dinner first :) I did not realize that there was already a page on induced pluripotent cells. I am currently involved in research in that field--specifically, attempting to induce skin cells to become intestinal epithelial stem cells--I may lengthen that article as well.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:41, 27 November 2011 (EST)

My developmental biology textbook (Gilbert's "Developmental Biology"--the latest edition is the best textbook in the field, in my opinion) pretty nicely summarizes all of the points that I made in this article. I have referenced a link to the online material for that textbook. I am thinking that it might be more appropriate to cite reviews and papers from the peer-reviewed literature. However, I think that a textbook written from the literature is a more concise source of information. I would appreciate some guidance on this point. Should I thoroughly cite the primary literature, or is a textbook enough? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:18, 27 November 2011 (EST)

Adult stem cells

2011-11-28T02:06:46Z

RudrickBoucher:

'''Adult stem cells''' are pluripotent, semi-differentiated, cells that exist in all tissues. Although, "adult stem cell" is not the preferred term used in the field to refer to them--developmental biologists will usually refer to them as a specific cell type (usually referencing genes they express) or as a tissue-specific stem cell. They function to maintain tissue homeostasis by dividing to replace damaged or senescent somatic cells. The two most well-studied examples of adult stem cells are the hematopoietic stem cells, which give rise to blood cells, and the intestinal crypt stem cells, which give rise to the intestinal epithelium.<ref>http://9e.devbio.com/</ref>

As pluripotent cells, most adult stem cell types can generate cells of several different types. However, because they are already epigenetically programmed to favor a particular fate, they generally cannot generate cell types outside of their lineage without genetic manipulation.

Identifying and characterizing stem cells within all adult tissues is an area of much intense ongoing research. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the regulation of these stem cells has led to many recent breakthroughs in the field of cancer biology. A recent paradigm-shift in cancer biology was the discovery that cancer is a disease resulting from dysregulation of adult stem cells. The clinical implications of this concept are still being explored. Obviously, there is still much in this field that remains unknown.

Functionally, adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells. Whereas embryonic stem cells are omnipotent, and may be coaxed with growth factors into producing any known cell type, adult stem cells are already partially committed to a particular fate and, without genetic manipulation, will only generate a limited number of cell types. As stated above, this is currently an intensive area of research, but at the present the two are not practically equivalent.

Induced pluripotent cells are adult somatic cells that have been manipulated, either genetically or with growth factors (generally a combination of the two), to become pluripotent stem cells. These cells still retain some epigenetic imprinting of their original type--even with the most current techniques. Mouse models have demonstrated that these cells have a significantly higher tumorigenic potential than transplanted embryonic stem cells. As such, therapies involving induced pluripotent stem cells are primarily being studied only as options of last resort. As scientists in the field devise better ways to generate these cells (new techniques are a current area of much research--there have been at least 40 published since 2009), they may become a useful tool in the clinic and the laboratory. Until that happens, induced pluripotent cells cannot substitute for adult or embryonic stem cells in clinical medicine or research.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Embryonic stem cells

2011-11-28T02:01:17Z

RudrickBoucher:

'''Embryonic stem cells''' are taken from a young embryo. They are generally taken from the inner cell mass of a [[blastocyst]]. They may also be derived from early blastomeres taken from a "morula", which is an embryo of 4 to 32 cells. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells. However, implantation (attaching to the uterine wall) does not occur until at least 9 days after fertilization. Neurulation (primordial development of the central nervous system) occurs about a week later.<ref>http://9e.devbio.com/</ref>

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists have shown effectively that embryonic stem cells have greater differentiation potential, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

In 2001 President [[George W. Bush|Bush]] allowed [[federal funding]] for research performed only on the 60 human embryonic stem cell lines that were in existence at the time<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html </ref>. Cell lines drift genetically and morphologically over time, and due largely to the ban on producing more embryonic stem cell lines with NIH funds, researchers focused on producing embryonic-like stem cells from adult (differentiated) cells; these cells are known and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). These cells have similar properties to embryonic stem cells but do no require the destruction of or any use of human embryos - humans donate their own cells (e.g. skin cells) and though slight genetic manipulation these cells, they can be reverted into essentially an undifferentiated state and gain the ability to become nearly any cell in the body (i.e. pluripotency). This major advance in the stem cell and medical fields came much sooner than most researchers expected; this can be credited largely to the Bush ban regarding human embryonic stem cells.

Despite the strong genetic similarities, the production of chimpanzee stem cell lines have been problematic, though stem cells have been produced for other non-human primates.

==Controversy==
[[Pro-life]] conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos tantamount to [[abortion]], as a human life is ended.

: Those who value human life from the point of [[conception]], oppose embryonic stem cell research because the extraction of stem cells from this type of an embryo requires its destruction. In other words, it requires that a [[human life]] be killed.<ref> [http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/pros-and-cons-of-stem-cell-research.htm Pros And Cons Of Stem Cell Research]</ref>

Many [[liberals]], on the other hand, claim that all the embryos used for stem cell research are already condemned to death because most of them are the byproduct of [[in vitro fertilization]], a procedure that requires the production of a number of embryos far in excess of the number that are successfully implanted. Few parents choose to cryogenicaly store these excess embryos, and with no further use for these embryos, they are often destroyed. Thus, liberals claim that embryonic stem cell research does not result in the destruction of any additional embryos. <ref>http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/18/4/672</ref> Conservatives argue that unused embryos can be adopted within a 10 year window of viability <ref>http://www.embryoadoption.org/</ref> and thus saved from destruction; however, embryo adoption is very rare and far too few prospective adoptive parents exist for all unused embryos to be adopted.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]][[Category:Medicine]][[Category:Reproduction]]

Talk:Adult stem cells

2011-11-27T22:41:11Z

RudrickBoucher:

Adult stem cells

2011-11-27T22:17:17Z

RudrickBoucher: re-write

'''Adult stem cells''' are pluripotent, semi-differentiated, cells that exist in all tissues. Although, "adult stem cell" is not the preferred term used in the field to refer to them--developmental biologists will usually refer to them as a specific cell type (usually referencing genes they express) or as a tissue-specific stem cell. They function to maintain tissue homeostasis by dividing to replace damaged or senescent somatic cells. The two most well-studied examples of adult stem cells are the hematopoietic stem cells, which give rise to blood cells, and the intestinal crypt stem cells, which give rise to the intestinal epithelium.

As pluripotent cells, most adult stem cell types can generate cells of several different types. However, because they are already epigenetically programmed to favor a particular fate, they generally cannot generate cell types outside of their lineage without genetic manipulation.

Identifying and characterizing stem cells within all adult tissues is an area of much intense ongoing research. Understanding the mechanisms underlying the regulation of these stem cells has led to many recent breakthroughs in the field of cancer biology. A recent paradigm-shift in cancer biology was the discovery that cancer is a disease resulting from dysregulation of adult stem cells. The clinical implications of this concept are still being explored. Obviously, there is still much in this field that remains unknown.

Functionally, adult stem cells are very different from embryonic stem cells. Whereas embryonic stem cells are omnipotent, and may be coaxed with growth factors into producing any known cell type, adult stem cells are already partially committed to a particular fate and, without genetic manipulation, will only generate a limited number of cell types. As stated above, this is currently an intensive area of research, but at the present the two are not practically equivalent.

Induced pluripotent cells are adult somatic cells that have been manipulated, either genetically or with growth factors (generally a combination of the two), to become pluripotent stem cells. These cells still retain some epigenetic imprinting of their original type--even with the most current techniques. Mouse models have demonstrated that these cells have a significantly higher tumorigenic potential than transplanted embryonic stem cells. As such, therapies involving induced pluripotent stem cells are primarily being studied only as options of last resort. As scientists in the field devise better ways to generate these cells (new techniques are a current area of much research--there have been at least 40 published since 2009), they may become a useful tool in the clinic and the laboratory. Until that happens, induced pluripotent cells cannot substitute for adult or embryonic stem cells in clinical medicine or research.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Genetics]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Talk:Adult stem cells

2011-11-27T21:03:50Z

RudrickBoucher:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-11-14T18:01:40Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A few sections that should be removed... */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::A bigger logical fallacy occurs when someone insists or thinks that an alternative hypothesis B must exist before disproving a hypothesis A.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:14, 12 November 2011 (EST)

:::::::Good point. However, when a hypothesis is not supported the scientific process usually then entails asking the question of why it was not supported, and then forming a new hypothesis that once again fits all of the available data. This is why scientific understanding of even the most hard and fast paradigms can change so dramatically from one generation to the next (or, occasionally, from one experiment to the next). The most exciting science gets done when a well-reasoned hypothesis is rejected--simply because it opens the door to so many new possibilities.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 13:01, 14 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== At first glance ==

There are so many problems with this page I don't know where to start. Whomever wrote it is obviously clueless about science and its

methods. A few of the problems include:

1. Despite wasting millions of taxpayer dollars searching for gravity waves predicted by the theory, none has ever been found.

The lack of experimental confirmation ''so far'' of gravity waves does NOT falsify the theory. Absence of evidence is not evidence of

absence.

3. Subatomic particles have a speed observed to be faster than the speed of light, which contradicts a fundamental assumption of

Relativity.

Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed.

7. The acceleration in the expansion of the universe confounds relativity

Untrue. The EFEs contain a term (the cosmological constant) that fully accounts for accelerated expansion.

10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass

What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem. ?

13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement

AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster

than light.

14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51.

See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not

"true and verifiable".

15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not

falsify a theory.

26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the

theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.

Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity.

27. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction.

This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

The priniciple of isotropy does not falisfy Relativity. The theory itself accounts for, and predicts, the difference in observed inertia.

28. Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws

of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

And Relativity also predicts that photons have non-zero momentum. Relativistic systems can have non-zero momentum even with no

rest mass, due to ''mass-energy equivalence''. Relativity correctly predicts the momentum of a massless particle as p = h*f/c = h/λ.

31. The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows

down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to

be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity

Incorrect, as this only takes Special Relativity into account. This is a common fallacy. It is the acceleration required to return the twin

that accounts for the difference in clocks and is explained/predicted by General Relativity. One must take both SRT and GRT into

account.

32. Based on Relativity, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right,

theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

Fields do not constitute an "aether". The EM field exists (and was explained/predicted by Maxwell long before Eistein).

34 (a). In Genesis 1:6-8, we are told that one of God's first creations was a firmament in the heavens.

How is such an account "true and verifiable"?

34(b). This likely refers to the creation of the luminiferous aether.

Something that is "likely" does not falsify a scientific theory.

35. Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the

properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.

This is not an argument against applied mathematics, not against Relativity per se.

37. Despite a century of wasting billions of dollars in work on the theory, "No one knows how to solve completely the equations of general relativity that describe gravity; they are simply beyond current understanding.

This does not falsify the theory.

~~csmcmillion

:'''Reply''': by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack, you lost credibility from the get-go. A quick review of your points confirms it:

:1. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It is when billions are spent on many years of looking. Surely you wouldn't think a lost item is in your backpack if you spent time looking for it there and could not find it.

:3. "Only in experiments that have yet to be confirmed." Experiments '''''are''''' confirmation in themselves.

:7. "the cosmological constant... fully accounts for accelerated expansion." Reliance on a cosmological constant has failed before.

:10. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass. "What logical problem? I studied physics at the graduate level and have never heard of any logical problem?" Oh please. None of these counterexamples is candidly addressed in physics departments because these counterexamples cast doubt on a theory preferred for political reasons. Anyone in a physics department who expresses doubt about the theory of relativity would be thereby ending his own academic career.

:13. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement. "AAAD is a matter of interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In any case, it does NOT Falsify GRT as no information is propagated faster than light." Relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance (which cannot seriously be disputed in QM) whether a type of information is transmitted or not.

:14. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54, Matthew 15:28, and Matthew 27:51. "See 13 (above). This statement also assumes that the action-at-a-distance by Jesus described in the Bible actually happened. It is not 'true and verifiable.'" There are no [[Counterexamples to the Bible]], so this conflict is a serious one.

:15. The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching. "Gravitons are the quanta of gravity waves. See #1." And see my answer to #1.

:18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. "The ability to lead to other insights has never been a test of the validity of a scientific theory, and lack of consequent insight does not falsify a theory." The failure of the theory to produce is strong evidence against its validity.

:26. The lack of useful devices developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress. "Development of useful devices is a matter of engineering, and is not a test of a scientific theories validity." A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I'll address your other responses as my time permits. For now:

"by starting with an ''ad hominem'' attack"

Stating the obvious is not an ad hominem attack. I didn't say the author was an "idiot". Anyone who honestly thinks that because "devices" have not been engineered based upon a scientific theory somehow ''falsifies'' that theory ''is'' truly clueless (maybe ignorant would have been a better word) of science and the scientific method. A correct scientific theory must explain previous observations and correctly predict those to come. No where is there a requirement that it lead to engineered "devices".

14. "The action-at-a-distance by Jesus"

I should have added: The AAAD by Jesus is (usually) considered a miracle - a suspension of natural law. So I'm not clear on how the suspension of natural law could be considered a counterexample to a natural law to begin with.

18. The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

I should have asked a simple question on this one: Have you ever asked an astronomer, cosmologist or theoretical physicist if s/he has had insights from Relativity? Please - find ''one'' that hasn't had deep insight as a result.

"A theory that inhibits technological progress, rather than enhance it, is almost certainly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 00:15, 13 November 2011 (EST)"

So, adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible, which hindered technical progress for more than a thousand years, indicates that the Bible is almost certainly wrong. Thank you '''so much''' for clearing that up. ~~csmcmillion

:Take a look at [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. When you post more substantive comments, then I'll respond to them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:37, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I agree that "relativity essentially denies action-at-a-distance", but not that AAAD "cannot seriously be disputed in QM". There is no QM experiment that show AAAD. There are interpretations of QM that seem to imply AAAD, and respected physicists who believe in those interpretations and hence in AAAD. But QM does not imply AAAD as there are also relativistic interpretations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:QM experiments have shown that a pair of spinning, entangled photons can be separated a great distance, and that the mere observation of the spin of one of those photons immediately removes the uncertainty about the spin of the other photon a far distance away. All attempts to deny that [[action-at-a-distance]] reality have failed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Andy: Why did you delete RSchlafly's most recent comment? RSchlafly: I believe you are correct. A little research on my part shows numerous refutations to the assertions made on this page, going back a couple of years:

http://skullsinthestars.com/2010/08/09/right-wing-refutations-of-relativity-really-really-wrong/

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/6253

I'm beginning to see why people are telling me not to waste my time trying to contribute to this site.
:All you're doing is making your own "assertions without clarification". We've had these arguments before, and these arguments were created by people who refuse to listen to what we say or refuse to read any of the sources we provide. And it's tiresome. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:44, 13 November 2011 (EST)

:User:csmcmillion, it's not a discussion when someone won't use his own words to explain his views.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:49, 13 November 2011 (EST)

::And it's not a discussion when sysops repeatedly delete comments, as you just did. ~~csmcmillion
:::And what exactly did I delete? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:42, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-11-12T05:56:53Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A few sections that should be removed... */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Schlafly, I saw you re-added the "counter-example." Will you please respond to me? Are you seriously just going to keep it there and refuse to discuss this at all? Wow and you claim that we're not open-minded.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:45, 9 November 2011 (EST)

::::::::::Andy, there is no "counter-example of photons." Photons are not mentioned in the list. But are you referring to this counterexample:

:::::::::::28.Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

::::::::::Let's be clear about what the dispute is first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 11 November 2011 (EST)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

::::I concur. Rather, arguing "counterexamples" is a fine way to demonstrate the weaknesses, inconsistencies, or future directions of inquiry regarding any scientific paradigm. However, it is a logical fallacy to say that "these are the problems with hypothesis A, therefore hypothesis B ''must'' be true". For a position to be effectively argued, one must present empirical evidence in support of an alternative hypothesis. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 00:56, 12 November 2011 (EST)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-11-03T01:36:11Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A couple more problems */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==Path Independence and Photons==
Wait, so time is some sort of vector field such that when you integrate it you get time? And that vector field is conservative? I've never heard of such a thing... 
As well, you state: "Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum." Yes, if you plug in the formula for non-relativistic, Newtonian momentum, you get zero, but SR gives you the equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. Plug m=0 in. You get E=pc. So, the momentum is nonzero. That's a very well-known result... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 12:06, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
:So should I take the "counter example" down...? Not to be rude but can someone at least respond to me? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 14 October 2011 (EDT)
::Take it down, then if someone reverts (which is likely) it'll provoke a short discussion that probably won't reach a consensus. Regardless, you're unlikely to succeed in keeping it changed. I'm not trying to discourage, go ahead and try changing it, I'm just letting you know what to expect. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 21:33, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:::These are interesting points worthy of further discussion. As to the first point, however, merely asking two questions is not persuasive to me.

:::As to the second point, I find the argument somewhat circular. Is the energy equation cited verified by any experiment, or is it merely definitional? If merely definitional, then it does not provide a way for calculating actual momentum.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:54, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Well answer them. The point I'm making is that there is no vector field such that when integrates it, one gets time. I had never heard of it until then. I am asking you to enlighten me.
 
::::And as a matter of fact there is! The equation is E=hf where E is the energy of the photon, f is the frequency of the photon, and h is just a proportionality constant (known as Planck's constant). And it has been experimentally verified. It explains the spectrum from blackbody radiation and it explains the photoelectric effect. And if I recall correctly, your camera uses the photoelectric effect. These things are quite well known... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:55, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and I forgot to mention--the Compton effect is explained by photons. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::Please address my more substantive point: has your equation E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2 been experimentally verified, or is it simply definitional?

:::::::First of all, will you please answer my question...? What is the vector field such that when one integrates over it, one gets time? And oops. Misread your question. And no, it's not "definitional," it's from the relativistic expressions of energy and momentum... (And yes, those have been experimentally verified--if I recall correctly, using those equations, you can predict what can happen (i.e. speeds) when elementary particles are created. But I'm not particle physicist) Once you have those, just do a little algebra and you get that equation. And I hope you're not going to deny basic algebra....
 
:::::::Again, all this is well known.... Out of curiosity have you ever actually studied relativity or this photon stuff? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:39, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::OK, I've removed the counter-example of photons...I think I've provided a satisfactory explanation to Schlafly (and he's not responding for some reason...) [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:50, 28 October 2011 (EDT)

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Looks like they've found the problem already: there was a flaw with the experiment.http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php This article basically says that they used GPS to measure the locations and the times. However, because the satellite used moves at a different speed to the Earth, relativity needs to be taken into account. Usually, relativity has no significant effect until speeds get nearish the speed of light. However, the neutrinos travelled 60 nanoseconds faster than light. Because it's nanoseconds, the speed difference of the Earth and the satellite is enough that relativity affects the experiment at the nanosecond level. Scientists have done calculations to determine how this changes the results (as because of the flaw, the results they got weren't actually accurate), and found that the neutrinos actually travelled for 64 seconds longer than they previously thought, making their speed very slightly less than the speed of light. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 18:02, 19 October 2011 (EDT)

: No, this explanation has not been accepted. There have been many other papers with other explanations. The jury is still out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:33, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::: As for redoing the M-M experiment, the [[LIGO]] experiment can be seen as a $400M modern M-M experiment. While the M-M failed to detect the motion of the Earth, LIGO has failed to detect motion in other galaxies. You may be interested in this new paper reporting on an NSF grant to teach high school students about LIGO detecting gravity waves. This is just to be ready in case LIGO ever succeeds in detecting anything, I guess. [http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3720] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 06:08, 30 September 2011 (EDT)

== A few sections that should be removed... ==

12: For this point to be right, things need to have started VERY VERY small, which is impossible if Creationism is right. This creates an inconsistency within Conservapedia and should be removed.
26: The first part is wrong due to GPSs. In order to be more accurate, they take into account relativity, and hence relativity has produced something useful. The rest of it is repeated in 18. Hence, as everything in 26 is either wrong or repeated, it should be removed.
28: Relativity does not require everything with 0 mass to have 0 momentum. It actually takes into account that light, despite having 0 mass, has momentum.
29: This is actually wrong. The age of each twin is independent of the path travel, it is dependent only on the acceleration they experience. Therefore, this point is wrong.
Any comments or disagreements? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 22:02, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

:On point 12, physicists themselves admit that relativity contradicts quantum mechanics shortly after the Big Bang. So even relativists would (or should) concede the validity of this counterexample.

:On point 26, GPS's were not developed as a result of relativity. This has been discussed at length on this site in the past. No relativists were involved in the engineering of GPS's; any differences in timing on the satellites relative to ground are more easily corrected by synchronization rather than theoretical predictions.

:Will review the other points later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

::I fully agree with all this. Some of the stuff in this page literally left my head hurting pretty badly from facepalming so hard.

::And, Schlafly, how does this make relativity wrong? Newtonian physics is wrong at quantum levels too. Should we add a "Counterexamples to Newtonian Mechanics" page and put something like that in there too? Of course not--it's an excellent approximation for things on the everyday scale. Same thing with GR.

::No, they were not developed because of relativity, but they were developed taking relativity into account. The people who built it didn't know the specifics, but they knew the corrections from relativity were there and they took them into account. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:53, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== A couple more problems ==

These went up after I posted the other section so I didn't know what to do. If you would prefer I post it there, then sorry. I'm new to wikis so I don't know proper etiquette and perhaps a missed something in the guidelines :)

Anyway, first thing, you state: "It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

...Honestly, I am speechless about this. Again, this was taken down but now someone put it back up... You guys honestly think this statement is true? There is no connection between the two--the only thing they have in common is the name "relativity." What, you think that people's morals depend on their frame of reference and change by the relativistic <math> \gamma (\equiv 1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})</math> factor or something?! I am truly shocked by this...What connection is there? Where is the equation that predicts this?

Secondly: "Relativity breaks down if a solenoid is traveling at or near the speed of light." Nope. Things can't travel at the speed of light, according to SR. Relativity explicitly states that things cannot go faster than light. If you drop this, then of course there are going to be going to be inconsistencies with SR...And that thread only talks about things going at the speed of light. What's the problem with solenoids travelling near c? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 16:52, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
:Can someone please tell me what the link between moral relativism and GR/SR is...? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:04, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

::Because <s>God</s> <s>psychotic rambling homophobic momma's boy</s> Andy Schlafly said so. You have to turn off your <s>indoctrinated</s> educated mind... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:36, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Great Flood

2011-11-03T01:28:01Z

RudrickBoucher:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== General Discussion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== On Kant ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::...um... this is relevant to the article HOW?![[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:26, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== This article will be replaced ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== 3000 BC? ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== "Racial" differences since the flood ==

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

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

{{unsigned|Auld Nick}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wasn't the flood caused by the melting of the polar icecap, similar to what is happening now? Soon we'll all be under water.[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 17:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:35, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

==Ubiquity of the flood story==
"Cultures around the world record a world-destroying flood in their oral or written histories." Really? I'd like to see some sources on that. Normally I'd just add a cite on the article, but that's sure to be reverted. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 20:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: It would have been reverted in this case, because that is an introductory and general statement. The support for it is provided, with references, in the body of the article. The article does not say that the stories are "ubiquitous". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:57, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Why don't we have an article on the word "flood" in general? ==

I got to this article when I put in the word "flood", and expected an article about floods in general. Why is it that we don't have an article like that?

This is exactly the kind of thing that liberals make fun of us for. We claim to be a viable alternative to wikipedia, yet we are missing articles on so many different things.

Who here is in favor of making an article on floods in general?

We are an educational website, after all.

{{unsigned|JackSmith}}
:Good point. I'll do that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:34, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

: Simple: We're only about 18 months old, <s>and nobody's written one yet</s>. Thanks Tom. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Actually one was done, so I don't know the answer. Anyway, thanks to Tom we have one again. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

==Acceptance section==

It would be grammatically correct to change the word "true" to "truth". However, the article is locked and I cannot do this. --[[User:Trevor|Trevor]]
:Done. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:47, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== A blocked user questions habitat ==

Blocked [[User:Georgecross]] added this to the end of the "Criticisms" section on the main page. As this in itself wasn't the reason for his block, nor was it inappropriate content, but it didn't fit into the article as it stood, I decided it'd be better to add it here. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 09:45, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Noah would have had to have sailed around the world to drop off animals in the correct locations, such as Polar bears in the South Pole Penguins in the north pole, however the habbitats that these animals live in would probably have been destroyed. Noah also had to stop the starving caniverous creatures from eating all the other animals, presumably by feeding them road potatoes. However the real problems for Noah would have started when he finally go to home then he would of had to have planted crops and repatriate the earth.

== Opening Statement ==
"Virtually nothing historical, from writings to civilization to long-living organisms like trees, has survived from before about 3000 B.C., an approximate date given to the Great Flood"

This is a bit misleading to say the least. The evidence of cuneiforms were found around this time and five thousand years before that a vast amount of evidence of a 'token currency' society existed around the cradle of civilization. See this for a basic summary: http://heritage-key.com/world/cuneiform-birth-writing

Historical artefacts from before 3000 BC do exist and are genuine. The phrase should be reworded as such to acknowledge their validity. This is an archaeological criticism.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 09:47, 15 February 2010 (EST)
:Do you know what virtually means? If you're interested in learning more about the history of writing, look at [[History of Writing|the page I wrote on it]]. The fact that you cite a "token currency" dating to five thousand years before 3000 BC, ie, 8000 BC, speaks volumes about your worldview. Take a look at some of our ancient history articles with an open mind. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 09:50, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::In addition to Jacob's point, there is no independent verification of any writings or civilizations before about 3000 B.C. Your cite is to musings by an "English Literature graduate, who currently works as a writer and journalist in London. He enjoys ancient history, theatre and sport." British journalists are typically very [[liberal]], which can obviously interfere with their objectivity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:57, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::The section on proto-script lacks exact dates which we do know of. I will not get into here. I'm just suggesting the phrase could be better worded. Also mentioning trees is another problem as Prometheus, a famous tree in Nevada, has been estimated at 5,000 years old. Virtually is a bit too strong a word. Virtually is suggesting 'almost entirely'. It should be more along the lines of 'limited' or 'moderate' when interpreting the amount of data available. --[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:08, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::Estimated by who? What assumptions did they make in producing this estimate? I encourage you to think critically about what you've been told. A majority of Americans have accepted the Bible literally. Maybe you should stop thinking we all suffer from some kind of mass delusion, and instead examine your own belief systems. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:10, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::::This is not an attack on a belief system or suggesting anyone is delusional. This is just a discussion on the phrasing and if it should be changed. There are many 'oldest trees' in America that a lot of parks are proud of and a lot of museums with historical data that can be researched and double checked if one takes the time. This is not anti-conservative, merely pro-knowledge of the things we do know. If there is a fake or a fraud in the given claims of ancient civilizations, and I'm sure there are plenty, it can be addressed. But suggesting the scholarly world had no evidence and knew nothing about civilization before 3,000 BC is simply too misleading and frankly, dishonest.--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:20, 15 February 2010 (EST)

I can't speak for any other editors, but I personally am not going to debate you anymore on this. Contribute constructively, or leave. Don't come here to pick fights. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:24, 15 February 2010 (EST)

Well it's just a suggestion. I think it is only courteous to discuss changing the opening statement, before going ahead and editing it. I didn't expect it to be a topic of dispute. I'm not making any changes to it.
--[[User:Composer|Composer]] 10:40, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:Jacob, I thought it was only 40% of Americans who took the Bible literally. Where'd you get a majority? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:07, 16 February 2010 (EST)

==Technical Question==

If the flood was global, and Noah only saved animals, how did all of the plants, fungi, protists, bacteria, and fungi survive? What did the first generations of herbivores eat while waiting for the plants to repopulate themselves? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:27, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Coma (Medical condition)

2011-10-27T13:23:18Z

RudrickBoucher: typo

Explanation of my edits:
*IV (intravenous tube) - more medical term than "tiny plastic tube"; also not necessarily plastic.
*Ventilator - trachea in place of windpipe. Introduced different methods of delivering mechanical ventilation.
*Bedsores - not necessarily open sores. Open sores are Stage 2 ulcers and above.

==As this relates to the link on the main page==

There is a pretty fundamental difference between a coma and a vegetative state. Coma patients are unconscious and unresponsive (but may possess some reflexes) and they do not experience normal sleep/wake cycles. Patients in a vegetative state do experience periods of arousal sometimes mimicking normal sleep/wake cycles, they are generally unresponsive to external stimuli but they may engage in various involuntary movements. It is important to note that in patients who are truly in a vegetative state, the "wakeful" seeming behaviors that they exhibit do not result from any "higher order" brain functions--they are simply the consequence of having an intact brain stem. Generally, the possibility of a patient recovering from a persistent vegetative state (a vegetative state that persists for longer than four weeks) is near zero. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Coma (Medical condition)

2011-10-27T13:17:28Z

RudrickBoucher:

A '''coma''' is a serious medical condition characterized by severely diminished brain activity. It has nothing to do with [[sleep]]. A person in a coma is [[unconscious]] and will not respond to [[voice]]s, other [[sound]]s, or any sort of activity going on around them. He or she is still [[alive]], but his or her [[brain]] is functioning at its lowest stage of alertness. Comas can be caused by different things, including:
* a severe injury to the head that damages the [[brain]]
* [[seizure]]s
* [[infection]]s involving the brain
* brain damage caused by [[oxygen]] deprivation
* an overdose (taking too much) of [[medicine]] or other drugs
* a [[stroke]]

When one of these events occurs, it can disrupt brain functioning, sometimes leading to a coma.

It is important to note that a coma is different from a vegetative state. Whereas coma patients do not experience sleep-wake cycles or exhibit any signs of arousal, patients in a vegetative state will experience periods of arousal. These may or may not mimic a normal sleep-wake cycle. Patients in a vegetative state may engage in involuntary movements and have near-normal reflexes but they exhibit no voluntary response to external stimuli.

==Care of coma victims==

A person in a coma usually needs to be cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the [[hospital]]. Intensive care units provide extra care and attention from doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff. They make sure the person gets fluids, nutrients, and any medicines he or she needs to keep his or her body as healthy as possible. These are sometimes given through an intravenous tube inserted into a [[vein]] or through a feeding tube that brings fluids and nutrients directly to the [[stomach]]. Sometimes a comatose person is unable to breathe on his own and needs the help of a [[ventilator]], a machine that pumps air into the lungs either through a [[tracheotomy]] tube or an [[intubation]] tube.

The hospital staff also tries to prevent [[bedsore]]s in someone who is comatose. Bedsores are [[pressure sore]]s on the body that come from inadequate blood supply caused by prolonged applied pressure in affected areas (e.g. when lying down for long periods of time).
[[category:medicine]]

==Induced Comas==

Sometimes doctors find it necessary to deliberately cause a coma in a patient. The practice of using a '''medically induced coma''' to put the brain in hibernation so it can recuperate has been used for over a quarter of a century. In the first several days after an injury, there can be swelling and other reactions that are part of the body's repair mechanism. But in the brain, those processes can be damaging, so when swelling is likely, doctors can decide to induce a coma by using sedatives to put the brain to sleep. The patient's brain activity is closely monitored, and the level of drugs adjusted accordingly, to ensure the brain stays in a restive state until the critical window has passed. The technique carries risks, though, so it is not used unless the likelihood of secondary injury due to swelling is significant enough to warrant the procedure.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/10/health/main1195836.shtml</ref>

==Links==
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3004892.ece 40% of coma patients in a ‘vegetative state’ may be misdiagnosed]

==References==

<references/>

Talk:Coma (Medical condition)

2011-10-27T13:05:19Z

RudrickBoucher:

Explanation of my edits:
*IV (intravenous tube) - more medical term than "tiny plastic tube"; also not necessarily plastic.
*Ventilator - trachea in place of windpipe. Introduced different methods of delivering mechanical ventilation.
*Bedsores - not necessarily open sores. Open sores are Stage 2 ulcers and above.

==As this relates to the link on the home page==

There is a pretty fundamental difference between a coma and a vegetative state. Coma patients are unconscious and unresponsive (but may possess some reflexes) and they do not experience normal sleep/wake cycles. Patients in a vegetative state do experience periods of arousal mimicking normal sleep/wake cycles, they are generally unresponsive to external stimuli but they may engage in various involuntary movements. It is important to note that in patients who are truly in a vegetative state, the "wakeful" seeming behaviors that they exhibit do not result from any "higher order" brain functions--they are simply the consequence of having an intact brain stem. Generally, the possibility of a patient recovering from a persistent vegetative state (a vegetative state that persists for longer than four weeks) is near zero. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:05, 27 October 2011 (EDT)

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-12T19:09:03Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Other Demands */

Leftist protest '''Occupy Wall Street''' is an anti-capitalism rally beginning September 17th, 2011 in [[New York City]] and is ongoing. The protesters consist of radicals, anarchists, college students, hippies, special interest groups, labor unions and vendors. They dislike [[capitalism]], blame greed, Wall Street and the banks for economic hardship. The movement was inspired by the Arab Spring protests in Cairo that were organized by the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]. Egyptians camped out in Tahir Square until [[Hosni Mubarak]] resigned. Similar 'Occupy' demonstrations have spread to a dozen cities.

Domestic terrorist [[Bill Ayers]] wrote concerning Occupy Wall Street, <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/obama-administration-in-los-angeles/days-of-rage-coming-to-the-united-states-to-destroy-capitalism Is American terrorist Bill Ayers behind the current "Days of Rage" protests?, Washington Examiner, September 11th 2011]</ref> {{cquote| Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!!}}

The [[lamestream media]] is putting the protest in a favorable light and oath-breaking Democrats are signalling their public approval for the civil disobedience. This latest protest is another attempt to counter the influence of the real grassroots movement, the [[Tea Party Movement]]. Many misinformed people see the protests as a worthy cause. Others say it is similar to the Tea Party. It is neither worthy, nor is it similar to the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement is a collection of concerned citizens that care for future generations, fighting for austerity and an honest national government. Wall Street protesters are selfish, make silly demands, have misguided rage toward job creators. Over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters have been arrested, zero arrests in the Tea Party movement. Their protest proclaims that thousands of cities in [[America]] will join their cause and that it will spread internationally to hundreds of cities. Unlike the Tea Party, [[Obama]] was quick to acknowledge this movement. [[Rush Limbaugh]] claims this protest is organized by the [[White House]] and Obama. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are "far-left loons" and "anarchists." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/10/09/wapos-wemple-really-disgraceful-oreilly-called-protesters-far-left-lo WaPo's Wemple: 'Really Disgraceful' That O'Reilly Called Protesters 'Far-Left Loons' and 'Anarchists', Newsbusters, October 8, 2011]</ref>

Reports already show that people are being paid to march. Manufactured protest signs indicate [[liberal]] money is influencing the protests. <ref>[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”, New American, October 5, 2011]</ref> A re-branded [[ACORN]] is involved with the 'Occupy' protests. <ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-exposing-occupy-wall-street-was-organized-from-day-one-by-seiu-acorn-front-the-working-family-party-and-how-they-all-tie-to-the-obama-administration-dnc-democratic-socialists-of-america/ VIDEO EXPOSING HOW ‘OCCUPY WALL STREET’ WAS ORGANIZED FROM DAY ONE BY SEIU/ACORN FRONT – THE WORKING FAMILY PARTY, AND HOW THEY ALL TIE TO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, DNC, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA, TIDES AND GEORGE SOROS, The Blaze, October 7, 2011]</ref> Other reports indicate that sanitation is becoming a concern as the park where the protesters camp hasn't been cleaned since September 16 and [[Michael Bloomberg | Mayor Bloomberg]] indicates that the protests are costing NYC tourism dollars.

[[Conservative]]s mock the movement as Occupy Sesame Street, for its childishness. Conservatives know that it's the government devaluing our currency, weakening our economy and plundering money from the next generation -- Wall Street and the banks aren't to blame. Republicans [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Herman Cain]] have denounced the protests as [[class warfare]]. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/congressional-dems-rally-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street/#ixzz1aIny1Ke7 Congressional Dems rally in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street’, Daily Caller, October 6, 2011]</ref>

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to sign a petition in support of the protesters. President Obama said that the movement reflected "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/186499-poll-finds-more-than-half-of-all-americans-aware-of-occupy-wall-street-protests?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed Poll finds majority of Americans aware of Occupy Wall Street protests, The Hill, October 10, 2011]</ref>

==13 demands==
The content below is listed on the Occupy Wall Street website by an affiliated protester. OWS has made their intentions known that it is an unofficial post and they do not have an official list of demands. Per their website,

{{cquote|Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.}}

===Other Demands===
On September 21, 2011, an unofficial list of demands was posted on the Occupy Wall Street website from "the fifth communiqué."<ref>http://occupywallst.org/article/a-message-from-occupied-wall-street-day-five/</ref> The group claimed the following demands.
{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more wealth than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.

Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.

Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.

Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.

Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

Ending war is our one demand.}}

Retrospectively, many "grassroot" Conservatives are scratching their heads about how any of these would be bad things.

==Liberal endorsement for Occupy Wall Street==

* [[Charlie Rangel]]
* [[Nancy Pelosi]]
* [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[Russel Simmons]]
* [[CNN]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[New York Times]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[Van Jones]]
* [[SEIU]]
* [[George Soros]]
* [[Bill Ayers]]
* [[ACORN]]
* [[Bernie Sanders]]
* [[Russ Feingold]]
* [[Rosanne Barr]]
* [[Susan Sarandon]]
* [[Cornel West]]
* [[Noam Chomsky]]
* [[Alec Baldwin]]
* [[John Lewis]]
* [[Arianna Huffington]]
* [[Hugo Chavez]]
* [[Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream]]
* [[Barbara Lee]]
* [[Raúl Grijalva]]
* [[Keith Ellison]]
* [[Louise Slaughter]]
* [[Dennis Kucinich]]
* [[Peter DeFazio]]
* [[John Larson]]
* [[Christiane Amanpour]]
* [[Daily Kos]]
* [[MoveOn.org]]

==See Also==
* [[One Nation]]
* [[Restore Sanity rally]]
* [[Save the American Dream rally]]
* [[Tea Party movement]]

==References==
<references/>

{{liberalism}}

==External Links==
* [http://occupywallst.org/ OccupyWallSt.org]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv/sick-of-media-comparing-occupy-wall-street-to-tea-party-watch-this/ What is Occupy Wall Street? Fox News]

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchists]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign/Archive 2

2011-10-04T20:50:49Z

RudrickBoucher:

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student ==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the [[Origin of Life]]: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]], are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011
::::We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a [[Atheism|significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion]]? If so, which ones? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Words change in meaning. For example people still talk about "the exception which proves the rule," a saying which makes no sense whatsoever. The reason it makes no sense whatsoever is that now we use "prove" to mean "confirm," whereas when that saying was coined it meant to TEST. I don't care what Cicero or the ancient Greeks took atheism to mean any more than I care what some 50 year old encyclopaedias take it to mean or than I care that "distaff" now means female descent but used to be a spinning implement. The fact is that atheism now means a lack of belief in gods, and that's the ground we have to fight on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history HERE] and [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html HERE] and [http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA1/genesisrecord.asp HERE]. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read [http://books.google.com/books?id=OXoefj6r-_0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=chance+cover+for+ignorance+quote+sproule&source=bl&ots=GtwbYTbfLt&sig=BbLC1HwH1ohYinXnauDLyCUpMOU&hl=en&ei=SRNzTuPAErDH0AGX-ZS1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false this]. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
:::::Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
:::::Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
:::::I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852327/?tool=pmcentrez here] and [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Thanks for the references, they were interesting but they don't really resolve the problem. I have no issue with the idea of gene duplication adding the necessary material for a smaller structure (the T3SS) to evolve into a larger one, but the problem is in the application of evolutionary theory to that. If we take E coli with 44 genes involved in coding the flagellum, and say that 25 of these coded for a fully functional ancestral secretory system, it's certainly possible for gene duplication to result in a still-functional SS with 44 genes, and the 19 non-coding genes will be free from selection pressure and able to mutate pretty freely. However for natural selection to turn this SS into a flagellum you need one of two things: Firstly you could have a series of plausible intermediate structures, each of which is beneficial and therefore selected for, and each of which results from a mutation of ONE of the non-coding genes in the SS. You don't have such a series; I'm aware that one coincidentally exists for the vertebrate eye, which is why "eyes couldn't evolve" is an argument I'd never use, but there isn't one here. Secondly you could have simultaneous complementary mutation of ALL 19 non-coding genes to take you from the SS to a functional flagellum, which obviously would then be selected for; the odds against this strain even even scientific notation.

:::::::::In my opinion this IS a valid argument against evolution, and while you can certainly point to a lot of homologies between flagellum genes and others within the cell I don't think you can bridge the gap between the T3SS and the flagellum. I know that many scientists are trying to resolve this issue, and I think their eventual failure to do so is a lot more likely to show them the truth of creationism than the "Question Evolution!" campaign, which in my opinion is mostly intended to give its originators something to congratulate themselves about and certainly has no chance of making any inroads in the scientific community. Anyway I'm wary of breaking the 90/10 rule here, so please feel free to email me and we can discuss it further. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:22, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::RudrickBoucher, I suggest you add your answers to the [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:27, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that [[abiogenesis]] was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!".[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] In short, it is part of the evolutionary paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a paradigm as "a '''philosophical''' and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why the origin of life is called "chemical evolution" by evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the "General Theory of Evolution" is the one developed by Darwin in the 1840s and it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis DECADES ago. Why argue against a theory that evolutionists abandoned in the 1930s? Tell them it doesn't answer the 15 questions and they're just going to shrug and say "Yeah, we know. So what?" As for chemical evolution, abiogenesis is only ONE way in which the term is used; it's also used to describe the cascade of elements formed by fusion inside stars, and quite clearly THAT isn't part of evolutionary theory either. By using non-standard definitions of what evolutionary theory is you're just opening yourself up to accusations of making strawman arguments. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution and we shouldn't be claiming that it is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:52, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution". Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, given your propensity to not adequately respond to posts directed towards you, I cannot say I read your post with any degree of due diligence and I merely browsed it. Secondly, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You might consider reading the post above which I just posted. By the way, given your propensity to not adequately respond to the post directed towards you and being very similar to a brick wall, I may move from merely browsing your posts to not reading them at all. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::My "obsession," as you put it, with these two articles comes from my concern at the spread of atheism and evolutionism and my desire to do something about it. Something that might actually WORK, that is, rather than asking ridiculous questions about "living fossils" that evolutionists are only unable to answer because they're laughing so hard. As for brick walls, would they resemble the ones erected around any article you've decided you own on here?

::::::::Feel free to stop reading my posts any time you like; that's your right.--[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Sam, if you sincerely want to stop the spread of atheism and evolutionism create some new articles on [[atheism]] and [[evolution]]. This is something which I don't believe you have done yet. Here is a list of some of the articles that need to be created: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Atheism_Project [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::That's where we disagree. I DON'T think most of these articles need to be created, and many of them could actually be counter-productive. What's the point of an article on "Atheism and God"? What's it going to say - "They don't believe in Him"? What is the "Atheism and Obesity" article intended to achieve? Are people supposed to accept Christ as part of a weight loss plan? You've pointed out elsewhere that this article is 20 pages long, and indeed it is. On the other hand CP's article on hydrogen - which is only the most abundant and important element in the entire universe - is barely more than a stub. Are we trying to create a valuable resource where people can find useful information without being subjected to the biases of Wikipedia - a trustworthy encyclopaedia, in other words - or just have some fun calling PZ Myers a gutbucket? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I suspected that you are an atheist and that you would not create any new evolution or atheism articles. Of course, this further confirms my suspicions. You did say that you don't think MOST of these articles need to be created. It will be very telling if you don't create any new atheism or evolution articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:09, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::It will indeed: it'll tell you that I don't think these articles are worth creating. I have explained exactly WHY I don't think they're worth creating and it has nothing to do with me being an atheist, which of course is utter rubbish. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::You said MOST of those atheism articles don't need to be created. That means you believe SOME of those atheism articles need to be created. Of course, if you don't create any, it will confirm my suspicion that you are an atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll state my opinion a bit more clearly: I don't think ANY of these articles actually NEED to be created, and most of them SHOULDN'T be. An issue like state atheism can be dealt with perfectly well as a section of the Atheism article and something like "Atheism and Christmas" isn't worth bothering about. So atheists give presents and decorate Christmas trees? Yes, they do. So what? If someone writes that article it will achieve precisely nothing except to give atheists a good laugh. They celebrate Christmas because they enjoy the celebration; they don't care what it really means and they don't care what you say about them celebrating it. Accuse them of hypocrisy for celebrating it? They're going to say "We enjoy it and we don't care what it's supposed to be about." Is it worth creating yet ANOTHER ad hominem piece attacking atheists when CP's article on oxygen is less than 250 words long?.

:::::I am not an atheist and I'd much appreciate it if you stopped insinuating that I am. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, are you going to create any new atheism and evolution related articles? If not, why not? You do say you are very concerned about atheism and evolutionism, but you are not creating any new articles on these subjects. Why is that the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I've already told you that I'm not going to create any new articles on atheism and evolution and I've explained why: because I think they're a BAD IDEA. What's the point of an article about Atheism and Christmas? Do you think Richard Dawkins is going to suddenly decide "Oh, I like Christmas cake! I better accept Jesus immediately!"?? The way to counter atheism and evolution is to put good, unbiased information into CP, not create infantile articles claiming that atheism is the work of Satan because PZ Myers could do with eating less. What CP needs is massive amounts of high-quality information of the sort that will make people want to come here, rather than to Wikipedia, when they need to find something out. It already has more than enough childish ad hominems and I'm certainly not going to add any more. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:20, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well said! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Nice to see that somebody's listening. User:Conservative certainly isn't. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Wrong, there are a myriad of relevant evolution and atheism articles that could be created. For example, there are various figures of atheism, historical periods of atheism, schools of thought, etc. that have not been created. For example, [[19th century atheism]]. I still think SamCoulter is an whiny atheist filled with excuses and rationalizations. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::And I think you're a parodist. I wonder what everyone else thinks? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 21:46, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Editing ==

How come this page is locked? --[[User:LesCoyle|Mike Cook]] 21:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::It's a way of censoring facts that they deem inconvenient. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 16:50, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Nobel Prize

2011-10-04T03:54:21Z

RudrickBoucher: /* No bias in the prize */

==Discovery of what?==
YO! [[User:Sid_3050]], the sentence, ''"In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently..."'' meaning the discovery of ''what'', exactly? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:...why are you asking ME? I didn't add that sentence. Check the edit history. However, the two cases are shown in the following paragraphs. For what it's worth: The article doesn't state what discovery Hoyle should have received a Nobel Prize for, ''as I pointed out in my edit summary''. General advice: Chill out, yo. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Oh sorry. It was the [[User:Aschlafly | Boss]]' edit. I'm chilly already, but, hey, thanks for the advice. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Awesome! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Damadian's exclusion - possible reason==
Actually if you look around you'll find other possible reasons that Damadian at least didn't get the Nobel (I'm not familiar with Hoyle). See, for example: [http://whyfiles.org/188nobel_mri/2.html]. It would be more accurate to say that some think it's because of his view of evolution, or something to that effect, since clearly other reasons have been put forth.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==Reagan and the Pope==
The article says "as the prize was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II" but does not state *why* they should have received the prize, or even which Nobel Prize.

:Hm, good point. I'll see if I can dig out what this sentence is based on. For now, the stub note and the fact tags are enough to say "This article should be taken with a grain of salt", but you are of course correct, and the sentence should go if it can't be backed and/or explained. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Reagan may be considered by some to be one of the US's great Presidents, but compared to the Red Cross, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dali Lama, I would think it would be hard to justify why he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. --[[User:Brewer13210|Todd]] 11:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::But compared to Jimmy Carter, Yasar Arafat, Kofi Anan, and Al Gore, it would think that it would be easy to justify.

==Thoughts after some initial research==
The more I dig around, the more I feel tempted to just wipe out most of this article and start from scratch. Things I currently have issues with
*"The selection process has become political, as the prize was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II [...]"
**Says who? Anybody of interest? And what do they base their argument on? What makes Reagan and the pope so much more awesome than the other candidates? A search for ''"Ronald Reagan" "Nobel Prize"'' did not reveal a striking result from what I saw.
*"and has not been given to anyone who criticizes the theory of evolution"
**VERY hard to verify. Prizes for more than a hundred years in several fields.
*"The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken liberals, such as Jimmy Carter."
**What is "mostly"? Numbers would be nice. And what definition of "liberal" are we working with? [[Liberal|This one]]? And what's the point?
*"He (Hoyle) was the leader on the project recognized with a Nobel Prize"
**The Nobel Prize went to Fowler and Chandrasekhar. I currently can't verify that they worked together in a project led by Hoyle. And while we're at it, I can't even verify that Hoyle and Chandrasekhar ever worked together.
*"Hoyle was an outspoken critic of the theories of chemical evolution."
**This is actually sourced, but initially said "...critic of the theory of evolution". While the previous version surely fits better into the ongoing theme, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution chemical evolution] appears to be something else. In the current version, it's a nice side story, but it doesn't really fit into the whole Creationism theme, so it stands "a bit" out. (See also the section below)
*"Another omission was for Raymond Damadian, another critic of the theory of evolution, who invented the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner"
**The first part actually appears to be true, but the second part is a bit odd. As Murray pointed out above, there are other explanations that don't require the belief that there is a conspiracy against Creationists.
*"Recently, there have been proponents of an alternate scientific award given to scientists who support Biblical principles."
**Like with the first part: Says who? I wouldn't even know how to properly search for such an suggestion.
In the face of the current article, I will most likely do a from-scratch attempt these days unless there is great opposition. I might include Hoyle and Damadian's stories, but with a bit more balance and context. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent Idea --[[USer:Brewer13210|Todd]] 9:51 18, March 2007 EDT

==Hoyle and the Nobel Prize==
While fishing around for more about Hoyle, I found [http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,9836,541270,00.html this article]. Here is an interesting quote:
{{QuoteBox|Fowler was awarded the Nobel prize for physics in 1983, and why Hoyle was not included in this award remains a mystery hidden in the confidential documents of the Royal Swedish Academy. The editor of the scientific journal Nature suggested that the academy did not wish to be associated with any endorsement of another idea then being promulgated by Hoyle. This was linked to Hoyle's belief that life must be of frequent occurrence in the universe. He argued that the primeval molecules from which life evolved on Earth had been transported from elsewhere in the universe. In itself this idea would not necessarily be rejected as absurd by the scientific community, but Hoyle had publicised a further argument that influenza epidemics were associated with the passage of the Earth through certain meteor streams, the particles of which conveyed the virus to Earth. 
 
This was dismissed as fictional by nearly all members of the biological and physical scientific disciplines. Indeed, the idea belonged more to Hoyle's activity as a writer of science fiction for over three decades.}}
And I dunno, but this may have possibly influenced his reputation a little bit, too:
{{QuoteBox|He was a fluent writer and speaker and became the main expositor of this new theory of the steady state, or continuous creation, according to which the universe had existed for an infinite past time and would continue infinitely into the future, as opposed to what Hoyle styled the "big bang" theory. 
[...] 
The conflict with the conventional idea that the universe had a specific origin billions of years in time past was absolute. Until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965, the observational evidence was inconclusive and the emotive feelings aroused led to one of the bitterest scientific divisions of the century. Hoyle never accepted the complete defeat of the continuous creation theory, and long after the "big bang" universe had become conventional scientific wisdom he continued to probe its defects.}}
Since it's 4am here, I won't draw binding conclusions here, but I think the material sheds some interesting light on Hoyle and the mystery of his denied Nobel Prize. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 23:05, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Rewrite ==

I've rewritten the article basically from scratch to include sources and some general history. I left out all unsourced statements - not because I "censor" anything, but because they were unsourced and my searches could not verify the claims.

The part about Hoyle is currently missing completely. I might put him back in later, but I figured I'd submit this version for the moment so people can comment and stuff.

Potential expansions of the Damadian case should most likely be done in his article, but that's just my current opinion. Thanks to Bturpin for the additional source there, by the way. :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:24, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==Very nice work==

Bravo [[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]!! Very nice work. Cleaned it up real good like. Nice and neutral w/o the pejorative aspects of its former self. (I'm not a big fan of the "chip on the shoulder" tone that many articles here seem to have.)
Again nice work. We'll have to get a list of winners and maybe flesh it out with a box or something. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you kindly! :) A list of the winners would be... long. Seven categories, more than a hundred years, yearly prizes... What might work would be an extra page per section, with this main article only listing the most recent winners and linking to the extra pages for more info. A template/box with info or links sounds like a nice idea, though!
:There is still quite a bit of history and stuff that could be added, but it'll take some long-term community work (long history pages like the Nobel Foundation one are dry reading for me =P). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::There's too much controversy, and nothing about the valuable contributions made by non-controversial recipients. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:40, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Milton Friedman ==

Milton Friedman, a conservative economist and proponent of [[monetarism]] and neoclassicism, is a laureate of the economics prize. His win ought to be included alongside claims that there is an "unwritten rule" that conservatives "are not awarded the prize." Other conservative Nobel winners include Ronald Coase and Friedrich von Hayek.

== Fred Hoyle ==

Added some stuff about Hoyle - the discovery he made with Fowler actually made him stop being an atheist!! No wonder he didn't get the prize. Hope the edit's ok - please change back if necessary. Nick Bowler 18:15 (GMT) 21 Nov 2009

:Your edit is superb. I strengthened it further by noting that Fowler had done much of his work under the direction and leadership of Hoyle."

:Didn't know the bit about the discovery converting Hoyle to [[faith]]. Feel free to add that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

== No bias in the prize ==

It is inaccurate to claim that there is a political bias in how the prize has been awarded. Liberals and conservatives have won a Nobel prize in every field throughout the prize's history. Furthermore, the prize has been awarded to scientists and thinkers who, often quite controversially, stand against the "party lines" on various issues in their respected fields.

Notable conservatives and advocates of controversial positions who have won the prize include:

::Kary Mullis (1993, Chemistry)--advocated strongly against [[global warming]] and [[HIV]] as the causative agent of AIDS

::[[Winston Churchill]] (1953, Literature)--member of the British Conservative Party

::[[Milton Friedman]] (1976, Economics)--Economic adviser to [[Ronald Reagan]], and a vocal libertarian

::James Buchanan (1986, Economics)--Vocal libertarian, has founded several libertarian political groups

This list is far from exhaustive, but it does illustrate the general lack of political bias in the Nobel committees. What the Nobel prize seeks to recognize is the overall impact of an individual's contribution to their field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:41, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

::Your list underscores the bias. Friedman said he wasn't a conservative, and I don't think Buchanan is one either. As to Mullis, his award preceded the [[global warming]] liberal orthodoxy. Winston Churchill is the exception more than a half-century ago that "proves the rule" that has been enforced with increasing bias ever since.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 3 October 2011 (EDT)
::: How about Mother Teresa, who won in 1979? He was a Christian who was against abortion, divorce and contraceptives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 21:27, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: That was more than 30 years ago, and Mother Teresa did not criticize the liberals theories of [[theory of evolution|evolution]] or [[theory of relativity|relativity]]. None of the scientists who have criticized those liberal falsehoods has ever been given a Nobel Prize, despite their tremendous achievements.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Concerning evolution, I can't, simply because the theory of evolution is so much an integral part of modern biomedical science (the evidence is overwhelming, you may as well concede that point). As for relativity, like evolution, that's been improved upon quite a bit. So long as all you're trying to argue are the original points of the theory, any Nobel prize winner in physics for the past thirty years would suffice. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 23:54, 3 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Nobel Prize

2011-10-03T22:41:16Z

RudrickBoucher:

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-29T12:11:25Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Ummmm... */

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The CERN experiment is not the only one suggesting faster-than-c travel. Moreover, there is no basis for doubting the news that something travels faster than c. Most of the objections in the media are based in an irrational clinging to Relativity. Hence the counterexample is being restored ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm pretty sure there's no reference to the perihelion because it's the raw data, without analysis. If the data was mapped to show Mercury's location, it would (presumably) show a perihelion. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 20:25, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

: Science can advance with one observation, and it's not necessary to wait until it is repeated before discussing and learning from it. How quickly (if ever) was the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] repeated?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

:: The Michelson-Morley experiment was first done in 1887. It was repeated by them and by others many times in the next few years. Illingworth and Kennedy came up with a variant that was more sensitive and could test for certain exotic explanations. They did that very soon after the initial experiment. Dayton Miller also did such experiments and continued to do them even after Einstein's work was completed. Miller acknowledged the results of the experiments but remained a committed opponent to special relativity. One of Miller's experiments did actually turn up some interesting results but his later experiments and other work failed to replicate it and it seems to have been a statistical anomaly. Others continued to duplicate versions of the MM experiment because the data from it can be used to test aspects of special relativity and other ideas. So duplicated forms have continued right up to the present day although generally using carefully tuned lasers as the light sources which give much more precision. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Some experiments done following the MM experiment (not all listed, only some early ones and some recent ones): Morley-Miller 1902-1904 (published 1904), Miller 1921, Miller 1923-1924, Antonini et al 2005, Stanwix et al 2006, Eisele et al 2009, Herrmann et al 2009. Plus others between them, just listing some early ones and some recent ones. And it is usually necessary to wait until an experiment is repeated before accepting it to be accurate. A single observation, that can't be repeated, usually has an explanation within the current understanding of physics. For example, a network of ravines and gullies was observed in the 1870s on the surface of Mars, and there was wide speculation about their origin. An explanation suggested in the early 1900s wasn't proved until the 1960s, that the ravines and gullies were in actuality an optical illusion caused by streaks of dust blowing across the surface in the strong winds. Another example of a 'discovery' that later turned out to be false was the existence of Vulcan, a planet between Mercury and the Sun. A single observation, unconfirmed by repetition, does not indicate a discovery. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:22, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::: Yes, the M-M experiment was repeated many times. It had to be done at different times of the year, at different altitudes, with different materials, etc. Eg, maybe the length contraction might have been different for wood and brass.
::: There are physicists who have suggested faster than light particles, but string theory and M theory are Lorentz invariant and useless on the issue. The string theorists would definitely be surprised by anything faster than light. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:24, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: Claimed results from a single experiment have been proven wrong before (e.g, the claims of producing [[cold fusion]] in 1989). It makes sense to see if an experiment is replicated before throwing out an extremely well tested theory. It's very suspicious that we haven't seen neutrinos going faster than the speed of light before this. Experimenters are only human beings and could easily have made a mistake or forget to include something in their calculations. The claimed velocity is only a tiny fraction lager than c and might easily be explained by not taking into account some systematic error.
:::: If Mr. Schlafly's other 36 "counterexamples" are so strong then I don't see why he so badly needs the example of an unreplicated experiment whose data is still in the process of being analyzed. (When Einstein was asked about the book '100 Authors Against Einstein' he responded: "If I were wrong, it would only have taken one".) --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 11:27, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: If the experiment is disproved by subsequent experiments, then that particular counterexample can be removed. But the insistence on clinging to the [[theory of relativity]] when the available evidence is to the contrary is unjustified. Einstein's quote is inapplicable to this issue: the context of Einstein's quote refers to a government attempt to discredit his theory. His quote does apply to government efforts to deny scientific evidence today, such as the attempt by the [[NCI]] to deny the [[abortion]]-[[breast cancer]] link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:07, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Gee, the experiment counts as a counterexample even before the facts are in. What a surprise....
:::::: I'm not sure if the German government was behind '100 Authors Against Einstein', but even if it were it's completely irrelevant. The folly wasn't that it was done by the government; it was that if relativity was wrong one good argument would suffice. The inclusion of this unconfirmed experimental result just shows how this list of "counterexamples" values quantity over quality. Rather than making a few strong arguments it's a list of 37 random tidbits. '''You're expecting to overturn one of science's best theories with something that can fit inside a Twitter post?''' The reasoning for many points' inclusion are not well explained and counterarguments are not addressed (e.g, Hawking radiation is called a "[c]ontrived explanation" with no justification whatsoever). I suspect the "conciseness" of the points is just a reflection of its author's short attention span. I'll report to the Worldwide Relativity Cabal that we have nothing to fear from... oops. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:46, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Thank you MatthewQ! Oh, and Mr. Schlafly, the evidence does not support a link between abortion and breast cancer. You may find good sources on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1733063/?tool=pmcentrez here], [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(04)15835-2/fulltext here], and [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 08:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Relativity

2011-09-27T21:49:11Z

RudrickBoucher:

{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}

==FTL Neutrinos at LHC ==

It may be jumping the gun to put the finding from Friday as evidence against GR. The results have yet to be duplicated - duplicability is needed for a claim to have scientific merit - and have yet to be carefully peer reviewed. The results are significant at the 95% CI but that means there's a 1 in 20 chance they're actually inaccurate. Given how many measurements are made at the LHC some are going to be both statistically significant and incorrect. It may be more prudent to wait to see if it's a one off or measurement error. I propose waiting at least until other particle acceleration labs can attempt to duplicate the results to make any judgement; after all, that's what CERN is doing
--[[User:BillyWest|BillyWest]] 00:18, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:I disagree. The opposition to the results from CERN -- which confirm prior results from another laboratory which were not as precise -- is unreasonable. It's not necessary to continue to pretend that Relativity is true when there is so much evidence against it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::CERN itself hasn't even confirmed the results. The data was published a lot quicker than data usually is because if it is accurate, then it changes the majority of physics laws discovered in the past century. The theory of relativity is not the only theory/law which involves the speed of light, electromagnetism does as well. Because of this, CERN wanted other scientists to try and find a flaw in the experiment quickly so that if there is a flaw, it is found quickly, and if there isn't, then scientists can begin determining what needs to change in order to accomodate this. Once the data has been properly analysed, without prematurely jumping to conclusions, then it would be fair to say that the neutrinos traveled faster than the speed of light. But something to keep in mind: this is not the first experiment done with neutrinos, all of the prior ones having travelled slower than the speed of light. If you do an experiment 500 times, and each results has a 1/1000 chance of being inaccurate, there is a 40% chance that at least one result will be inaccurate. If they find an error in the experiment (such as a piece of the measuring equipment being broken, or poor calibration of equipment, or leftover neutrinos from previous experiments, or any other impacting error), then wouldn't it make conservapedia look silly for jumping to a conclusion too quickly? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

Paul Johnson, the renowned historian, explains the link -- and the significance of the link -- between relativity and moral relativism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:57, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
:Do you have a link for that? It seems pretty flimsy to me. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
::Ah right, I found some stuff! It appears that Johnson acknowledged that there was no ACTUAL link between the two, but pointed out how many liberals CLAIM a link. That seems pretty close to what the article is saying, so my edit probably wasn't the best idea I've ever had, and as a bonus I've learned something interesting. Thanks for taking the time to explain rather than just blocking me :-S --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:17, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Have you read Tribe's article applying the curvature of space to support liberal views?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::No, I haven't. Is it easy to find? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:21, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: You can find it here [http://blog1.darkbuzz.com/tribe-1989.htm] or a pdf here [http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/~wat4y/103_Harv._L._Rev._1,_.PDF][http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~daw/D_Realism/Tribe.pdf]. On a college campus, you might be able to get it here.[http://www.jstor.org/pss/1341407] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

== Relativity and Electromagnetism ==
It is often claimed that Relativity is proven by its ability to explain aspects of electromagnetism. But those aspects do not relate to physical mass, gravity or various frames of reference throughout the universe -- the basic claims of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:59, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Lorentz used electromagnetic relativity to predict relativistic mass in 1899, and it was experimentally confirmed a couple of years later. Poincare used E=mc2 for radiation in 1900. So I think that electromagnetic aspects of relativity do relate to physical mass. They also relate to various frames of reference, as electromagnetic experiments were done at different times of the year to test different frames of reference in the Earth's orbit. Gravity and electromagnetism are separate forces, and I guess it is fair to say that relativistic aspects had to be tested separately. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Most of the counterexamples to Relativity relate to gravity; some relate to the claim that all (non-accelerating) frames of reference are the same everywhere in the universe. The essence of Relativity is its claims about gravity and space. Electromagnetism experiments have nothing to do with this, and do not confirm any of these "grand unified" assertions of Relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:12, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: You have to distinguish between general relativity, which is about gravity, and special relativity, which isn't.
::: Anyway, Newtonian mechanics is not consistent with Maxwell's equations while relativity (both special and general) is. Do you deny Maxwell's equations, Aschlafly? If you accept Newtonian mechanics, you have to. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: Also, it should be noted that Einstein's famous 1905 paper (which was very important in the history of relativity) is entitled ''On The Electrodynamics Of Moving Bodies''. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:30, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Again, a big part of the objection to Relativity is its "grand unified" approach. The insistence on that view is simply not scientific, and is contrary to the data.

::::: There are different forces in nature. There really are, and they really are different. That's what the data show.

::::: Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light. None of that exists in electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: ''Special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light'' -> No. Light travels the speed of light in special relativity. Any massless particle does as well.
:::::: ''None of that exists in electromagnetism'' -> A charged particle with a velocity less than the speed of light definitely falls under the domain of electromagnetism.
:::::: Again, Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics are inconsistent. You can't have both. The fact that other forces exist is irrelevant. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:56, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Special relativity makes no predictions, and only assumptions, about the speed of light. Instead, special relativity is about velocities less than the speed of light.
::::::: When the claim is made that Relativity explains electromagnetism, the claim is not referring to charged particles traveling less then the speed of light.
::::::: Your statement that Maxwell's equations and Newtownian mechanics are somehow inconsistent needs explanation. They describe completely different forces.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Special relativity predicts the speed of light is the same regardless of orientation of the observer, which is consistent with the Michelson–Morley experiment. It also predicts that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer, which is consistent with the Kennedy–Thorndike experiment.
:::::::: You said velocities less than the speed of light not exist in electromagnetism. This was clearly false.
:::::::: I already mentioned that Maxwell's equations were not invariant under Galilean transformation, yet are under Lorentz transformations. This is very well known. If you want the exact details see [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.165.5841&rep=rep1&type=pdf On the Galilean non-invariance of classical electromagnetism] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=19TCz0cxAFMC&pg=PA484&lpg=PA484&dq=%22maxwell's+equations%22+invariant+under+%22lorentz+transformation%22&source=bl&ots=gudaGknbwi&sig=9idd1t_o89t5RUSLcemoMq7hNjc&hl=en&ei=eq9SToXdHuTH0QHig62-Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=%22maxwell's%20equations%22%20invariant%20under%20%22lorentz%20transformation%22&f=false Understanding Physics, Invariance of electromagnetism under Lorentz transformation]. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: Special relativity says that the speed of light is constant. Maxwell's theory says that same thing, as does the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can be said to be an assumption or a prediction, depending on what textbook you are reading. At any rate, it is testable, and has been confirmed in many ways (for light in a vacuum). It was tested in outer space before testing on Earth. Relativity certainly also makes predictions about charged particles traveling less then the speed of light. The biggest prediction is the formula known as the Lorentz force law. This was an important part of relativity as decribed by Lorentz, Poincare, and Einstein. The Lorentz force law used to be considered part of Maxwell's equations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:49, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: These are interesting mathematical observations, having aesthetic value. They can suggest the existence of an intelligent designer.

::::::::: But the physical significance of these mathematical observations is scant or non-existence. Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light, and claims made by special relativity with respect to such motion are not verified by electromagnetism. Claims made by general relativity are not verified at all by electromagnetism.

::::::::: I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics. I'm not saying that Newtonian mechanics must be correct, but some criticisms of it do not withstand scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Yes, electromagnetism does involve particles moving close enough to the speed of light for relativistic effects to be important. Examples include the electron gun in an ordinary CRT TV set, electric motors, speakers, and just about any electronic device. These are not new. The earliest non-optical tests of special relativity were the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments] They started in 1901 based on Lorentz's relativity, and pre-date Einstein. They show that mass increases with velocity so that nothing goes faster than light. In Newtonian mechanics, the speed of light is not an obstacle. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:13, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::: ''"Electromagnetism does not involve particles moving close to the speed of light."'' -> [[Particle accelerator]] use electromagnetic fields to move particles close to the speed of light.
::::::::::: ''"I'm not aware of any experiment using electromagnetism that disproves Newtonian mechanics."'' -> The observed constancy of speed of the speed of light (an electromagnet wave) does. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 18:16, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I have an open mind about this, and would like to learn more. I wasn't familiar with the Kaufmann-Bucherer-Neumann experiments but didn't get much out of the Wikipedia description of them in the above link. Is there a clearer, more objective explanation that doesn't end with a sweeping, unsupported claim of proof of Relativity?

:::::::::::: The two most prominent claims of proof of Relativity -- the perihelion advance of Mercury and the binary pulsar -- are now counterexamples and the most precise data are not being made available to the public. So something isn't adding up in favor of Relativity.

:::::::::::: The lack of scientific basis for Relativity leaves it defenseless against another unscientific theory: string theory. Before long it may become important to list counterexamples to string theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Can I start [[counterexamples to string theory]] now? Its a good excuse for me to learn! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:57, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Please do! Also, Max, did you see the answer to your question about how Relativity is used by [[liberals]] to advance their belief system? I can repost the links if you didn't see them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::Great, I'll look into String Theory (I don't know much about it) and get on to writing something. Having a project to work on is a great incentive to learn new topics. please do post those links, thanks!

::::::::::::::::I see the links are posted just above this subheading, under "You can find it here"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:39, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::Ah yes, now I see. I'll read those tonight. Thanks! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:46, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: The Mercury and binary pulsar observations were used to support the gravity theory, and relativity remains the most accurate explanation. Andy, you asked about electromagnetism, not gravity. There is no way to understand electromagnetism without relativity, as far as I know. The Kaufmann experiments were supposed to disprove relativity. More precise experiments were consistent with relativity, as with all the other electromagnetic experiments. Just turn on an old-style TV set with a tube. How do you think that those pixels get lit up? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:16, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: There is some overlap between the invariant equations for electromagnetism and for relativity. The electromagnetism invariant equations came first, so I think the better description would be that one cannot understand relativity without understanding electromagnetism, not vice versa. But what that has to do with gravity is far from clear. In fact, it probably has nothing to do with gravity. Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism, because no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism.

::::::::::::: It's not relativity that lit up the pixels on an old TV screen. Quantum mechanics has more to do with that than relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:32, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: ''Note, by the way, that no Nobel Prizes have been awarded for applying relativity to electromagnetism'' -> Untrue. Quantum electrodynsmics (QED) combines special relativity, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics. A Nobel Prize for its discovery was awarded to Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga in 1965.

:::::::::::::: ''no insights have been produced by relativity with respect to electromagnetism'' -> Also untrue. QED predictions are accurate within 12 significant digits, making it the most accurate theory we have. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:17, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: By my count, Nobel prizes were given for relativistic electromagnetism were given in 1902, 1907, 1933, 1945, 1965, 1979, 1980, 1984, and 1999. Prizes for relativistic gravity were given in 1978, 1983, and 1993. The list is here.[http://www.almaz.com/nobel/physics/physics.html] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

@Andy Schlafly: Relativity predicts that no particle with mass can go the speed of light or faster. How do you explain that no particle accelerator has been able to get a massive particle at or above the speed of light? How do you explain the results that the inertial mass increases with velocity, as relativity predicts? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:00, 23 August 2011 (EDT)

:PArticle accelerators don't. CERN (the biggest one) gets them exceedingly close, but not above. It's something like 99.999% of C. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:59, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: Relativity assumes that, rather than predicts it. I think relavitist purists would actually say all that is needed is a maximum velocity, whether that is "c" or something else. Many would not be genuinely surprised if velocities slightly faster than ''c'' are ultimately attained, and ''c'' itself may be changing over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:36, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

: Historically, the constant speed of light was an empirical observation, and not just an assumption. Maxwell's theory predicted that electromagnetic waves traveled at the speed of light, and that was observed. It was one of the big reasons for concluding that light was an electromagnetic wave. Experiments like Michelson-Morley (1887) found a constant speed of light. Also, there were astronomical reasons for believing in a constant speed of light. Distances were measured in light-minutes or light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant. Yes, Einstein declared the constant speed of light to be postulate in 1905, but by then it was a well-accepted empirical fact. Going faster than ''c'' or finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics that it would be like finding a perpetual motion machine. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:27, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: Empirical data suggest that the speed of light has changed over time, and as recently as 1/6th of the universe's lifetime. [http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html]

:: You comments, like "distances were measured in ... light-years, and that only makes sense if the speed is constant," is a political statement, not a scientific one. Likewise for stating that "finding a variable ''c'' would now violate so much physics ...." Is this what university science has become - ignoring the data to preserve the reputation of some current and past professors?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:05, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::The article you linked to claims that "The speed of light...may have been lower as recently as two billion years ago." How do you reconcile that time frame with a Young Earth Creationist model where the universe is only 6000 years old? You cant reject that study on the one hand because it directly contradicts the Bible but embrace it on the other when it supports the idea of a shifting c. [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 18:45, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::: The linked article says there may have been a change in the fine structure constant, α, not necessarily the speed of light, c. Also, it hardly seems like a variable α is currently well-established. It's just the result from one set of data. But even accepting that there has been a change in α and that this means a change in c, the amount seems minuscule. The article says that α "had increased by a few parts in 105 in the past 12 billion years", which would correspond to a similar change in c. Therefore, even if c is not exactly constant it would be very nearly constant and relativity would still be a great approximation. That's ignoring that there may be a mundane explanation for this apparent change.
:::: Also, as BrentH mentions above, if you accept these results you have to accept that the universe is billions of years old. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:43, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

:: I was explaining historically why the speed of light was thought to be constant. It was not just some unproved Einstein relativity assumption. There was solid experimental and theoretical evidence before Einstein. There is no evidence for a variable speed of light. That 2004 paper claiming alpha changed has been superseded with a more accurate study in 2007, with no variation. [http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/the-oklo-reactor-and-varying-physical-constants/][http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/0701019] Even if alpha changed, it would not necessarily mean that ''c'' changed. I am not sure why any of this is political. We can measure the speed of light to about 10 decimal places. If the speed were not constant, then an experiment would be likely to detect it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I wish you, Andy and I could have a drunken dinner together some time. That would be an epic debate. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:17, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, what do you make of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation syncrotron radiation]? Here you have effects which can't be explained without relativity and which are used in many fields of research, e.g. in medicine... 08:28, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Wikipedia]] has many dubious claims that relativity explains something ... as one might expect from a [[liberal]] website. This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L] It appears that this may be unresolved and I welcome more discussion about it. I don't see evidence that relativity played a role in discovering it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Nearly everything about charged particles requires relativity and quantum mechanics. There is no alternative way to understand charged particles, as far as I know. I do not even know what it would mean to reject relativity for this. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:12, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Relativity is an unproductive belief system, disproved by more precise measurements in the tests that supposedly verified it. String theory is taking over university physics programs because Relativity is so obviously flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:28, 27 August

-
::::::: [[String theory]] assumes that relativity is 100% correct. Physicists pursue string theory because they are sold on Einstein's dream of using relativistic ideas to unify physics, without having to pay attention to experiments. They are ''not'' pursuing string theory because they are persuaded by your list of relativity counterexamples. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:47, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
:::::::: String theory's motivation is to provide a way to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity, so it assumes general relativity is a good description of nature. In fact, string theory becomes general relativity in the low energy limit. In addition, string theories are Lorentz invariant. Whatever the merits of string theory, relativity is incorporated fundamentally to it, so if anything this example speaks to the strength of relativity. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:11, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

-

-
::::::::: Andy Schlafly: ''"This scholarly article says that [[quantum mechanics]] is needed to explain syncrotron radiation. [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989A%26A...208..351L]"''-> It also says (right in the abstract) that relativity ''must'' be taken into account:

-
::::::::::"However, '''when ɣB ≅ 1014 Gauss, where ɣ is the electron Lorentz factor, Compton scattering becomes important'''. The result is a reduction in the synchrotron loss rate which '''agrees closely with quantum electrodynamics'''." [Emphasis added]

-
::::::::: Both Compton scattering and quantum electrodynamics make use of special relativity. If you take a look at the equations in the paper you can see that special relativity is used explicitly. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 15:32, 27 August 2011 (EDT)2011 (EDT)

This discussion is interesting, and I'm learning from it. I have an open mind about this. But it seems to me that term "relativity" is being used in comments above to mean anything from "invariance" (which, of course, predates relativity), electromagnetism (which, of course, predates relativity), and even quantum mechanics (which many say conflicts with relativity). The only thing that "relativity" does not seem to mean in many of the above comments is its description of gravity -- which is what is unique to relativity and what most associate it with.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:48, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

: The word "relativity" was coined by Maxwell, and it became popular from Poincare calling the "principle of relativity" the idea that different inertial frames are indistinguishable. When I said that string theory assumes relativity, I meant primarily that it assumes Lorentz/Poincare invariance. The influence of relativity on physics has been primarily in electromagnetism, not gravity. The nonlinear gravity effects are barely detectable. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:45, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

:: * Again, general relativity is about gravity. Special relativity is not.
:: * No one is saying "quantum mechanics" means "relativity". However, the article you linked to referenced quantum electrodynamics (a subset of quantum mechanics) which does incorporate special relativity. Moreover, while general relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile, special relativity and quantum mechanics aren't and doing so has produced [[Quantum electrodynamics|the most accurate theory in physics]].
:: * No one is saying "invariance" means "relativity". For example, Galilean invariance contradicts relativity. However, a special type of invariance, Lorentz invariance, is fundamental to both special and general relativity (it holds locally in general relativity). String theory is Lorentz invariant.
:: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:38, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Actually, there were some people around 1910 who wanted to rename relativity theory as invariant theory. Einstein is sometimes said to have agreed with that opinion, but I am not sure he really said that. There is some disagreement about whether relativity is compatible with quantum mechanics. The two main problem areas are collapse of the wave function during an observation, and gravitational nonlinearities at the center of a black hole. But these are a little off the subject. The theories are completely compatible for nearly all considerations. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:23, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::: Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it. Most of the counterexamples here relate to the claims about gravity and the curvature of space that are made by general relativity. Special relativity, according to the theory, is a "special case" of the general theory. If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me.

:::: The mathematical theory of general or special relativity permits no exceptions. So even a slight variation (outside of measurement error) between observation and prediction means the theory is wrong. It means the worldview embodied in relativity is wrong. And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::: ''"Relativity, general and special, is a way of looking at the world that is fundamentally different from how Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Maxwell, etc., looked at it."''
::::: We encountered phenomena that none of these people had before. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the Michelson–Morley experiment, gravitational lensing, etc. Changing your worldview in light of new evidence is quite a sensible thing to do.
::::: ''"If you want to discuss them separately as though one could be true and one false, then I'm fine with that, but that would surprise me."''
::::: It's not so much that, but that one must be careful to separate the two.
::::: ''"And those exceptions (counterexamples) exist in abundance; they can only be ignored by not looking at the data and not asking why the data are not being publicly disclosed."''
::::: They haven't been ignored. The data has been analyzed and it agrees with relativity. Just here we've given you the examples of the Michelson–Morley experiment, the Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments, Kennedy–Thorndike experiment, synchrotron radiation, etc. We've also answered here your alleged counterexamples to relativity and the problems with them. If you have any more I'd be happy to address them.
::::: I'm not sure what data you're talking about that hasn't being publicly disclosed. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::: Special relativity is not so much a special case, but rather the linearized version of the general theory. The special theory has been tested in many more different ways, and it could be true without the general theory being true. I really don't think that relativity requires any different view from Maxwell's. Relativity is consistent with what Maxwell said. I really don't see why you would say that relativity does not permit any exceptions any more than Maxwells theory does not permit any exceptions. What's the difference? Theories have formulas. If observations don't agree with the formulas, then something is wrong. Why is relativity any different from any other theory in the hard sciences? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:41, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::Relativity should not be treated any differently compared with any other theory in the hard sciences. But Relativity obviously is:

::::::*physics journals will not accept for publication anything that conflicts with the theory of relativity
::::::*the Nobel Prize will not be given to anyone who has criticized the theory of relativity
::::::*no science graduate student or science professor dare even criticize the above two forms of censorship.

::::::As to the data, the two leading supposed verifications of the theory are the binary pulsar (for which a Nobel Prize was given) and the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it. Yet additional data have not been made fully available to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:47, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::: I have to say I had no idea of this bias until reading Conservapedia. It sounds shocking. Can you tell me which physicists have been denied awards, or refused publication on this basis? It would be really useful in arguments I'm having off-site. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 18:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: ''"But subsequent data failed to confirm the theory and, at least with respect to the Mercury perihelion, conflicted with it."''
:::::::: Can you please provide a source for this claim? What data are you talking about? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::: A "source"? No source is needed, or possible given the censorship by physics journals I just described.

::::::::: Wouldn't you be at least interested yourself in looking up what the precession for the Mercury perihelion is, and comparing it to what Relativity predicts? I think that would be the first step before one made up his mind, not something that must be raised by someone else.

::::::::: The Mercury perihelion precession is 5599.7 arc-seconds per century, plus/minus 0.1. General Relativity predicts 5599.98, plus/minus 0.04. The observed precession is clearly outside of prediction by more than the standard of error. But beginning in the early 1990s, probably because of this emerging divergence, physicists stopped publishing the data perhaps to avoid pinpointing the contradiction with even greater accuracy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: So by your own admission general relativity is within 0.005% of the correct value?
:::::::::: Anyway, where are you getting your information for the precession rate? From what I gather the error is larger than 0.1 arc-seconds per century.
::::::::::Some values for the anomalous precession rate (i.e, deviation from what you expect from Newtonain gravity):
:::::::::: 43.11 ± 0.21 (Shapiro et al., 1976)
:::::::::: 42.92 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1987)
:::::::::: 42.94 ± 0.20 (Anderson et al., 1991)
:::::::::: 43.13 ± 0.14 (Anderson et al., 1992)
:::::::::: [Source: [http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9804/9804258v1.pdf Pijper 2008]]
:::::::::: General relativity predicts 42.98 ±0.04, while Newtonian gravity predicts 0. Clearly general relativity is superior here. It's within experimental error in three out of the four experiments above, and just barely out of it with the fourth. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:22, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: The theory of relativity is proven wrong by the data, '''''beyond measurement error'''''. If you're not going to address that directly, then I'm unlikely to respond further to your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: I really don't know what to say. I just showed that for four experiments of the precession of Mercury's perihelion relativity was within experimental uncertainty in three of them and just barely out of it for one. This is better that Newtonian theory which was zero for four. Measuring outside experimental uncertainty ''once'' doesn't automatically make a theory wrong. They are many differences between a simple, clean model and a complex, messy reality that can account for this. Even just by statistics alone you'd expect a correct theory to be outside measurement error once in a while. It still stands that relativity is more accurate than any other theory.
:::::::::::: If you have any citations of experiments that show relativity's predictions fall outside experimental uncertainty I'll be happy to address them. However, just declaring that it's outside experimental uncertainty, but you don't have the data because a relativity cabal is keeping it secret is doesn't merit a response. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:54, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: The most recent -- and most precise -- Mercury perihelion precession data '''''demonstrate that the [[theory of relativity]] is wrong by more than the measurement error'''''. Case closed based on the data.

::::::::::::: [[Last wordism]] is disfavored on this site. If someone has more precise Mercury perihelion precession data than what has disproved the theory of relativity, then a discussion of that data is welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: Sigh... I just explained in detail why it wasn't "case closed". Being outside experimental error doesn't automatically make a theory wrong, especially when it isn't that far off. It could mean the theory is wrong or it could mean the theory is right, but by chance measured outside experimental uncertainty. By statistics we expect that to happen every now and then. '''''You can't just cherry pick the one experiment that fits your preconceptions and declare it case closed. You have to take all the other experimental data into account.''''' When you do that here (that is, you also look at the other three experiments) the results look in favor for relativity.

:::::::::::::: You can have the last word if you want. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:31, 30 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: It is not true that the data demonstrate that the theory of relativity is wrong by more than the measurement error. What you have is a difference of opinion, and one scientist claiming that the combination of relativity and other assumptions and observations results in a discrepancy that exceeds the ''estimated'' measurement error. The problem could be with those other assumptions and observations, or with the estimate of the measurement error. As with the Pioneer anomaly, there are explanations that do not violate relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::: Any and all attempts to reconcile the observed data with the theory of relativity are welcome. Instead, I not aware of the publication of observed data for this fundamental claim of the theory since 1992 (see above), despite improvements in technology and precision since then. Anyone think that it became impossible to observe the data after that time??? Notice what the data were showing leading up that point: increasing divergence (and contradiction) with the well-settled prediction made by the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:37, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Here is the [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/19295/1/98-0601.pdf Mercury Radar Ranging Data from 1987 to 1997]. The work was carried out by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology under NASA. You are absolutely free to analyze the data in depth to see if the relativists are hiding anything. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:32, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::: Somehow I doubt the data above (going five years after the supposed suppression of data began) is going appease you. Well, you can go send NASA a letter and ask them for the most recent data about Mercury's orbit. They might give it to you if you ask nicely and they almost certainly have it, since [http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html they currently have a space probe orbiting Mercury] (I guess they didn't get the memo from the relativists telling everyone to ignore Mercury because it contradicted relativity). Anyway, once you get the data you'll have definitive proof that liberals have been suppressing important information about Mercury's orbit (or something). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:18, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::::: Looking back, I made a mistake. I said general relativity's prediction was outside the measurement uncertainty for the fourth experiment (Anderson et al., 1992). I misread it. GR prediciton: 42.98 ±0.04, Observation: 43.13 ± 0.14. They actually do overlap. So general relativity is four for four. My bad. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:41, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::::::: I took a look at the JPL link above but did not find any reference to the perihelion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

=== More counterexamples ===
I found another page with a long list of supposed counterexamples. It looks like nonsense to me, but you can check it out for yourself. He says, "Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs." He does have references of many of his alleged anomalies. [http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented] [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:11, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

=== Denial of [[Nobel Prize]] to anyone who criticizes relativity ===

:::::::: [[Robert Dicke]], the finest American physicist of the 20th century, criticized the theory of relativity and was then never given a Nobel Prize. In fact, in a pattern also used to punish [[Fred Hoyle]] for his criticism of the theory of evolution, a Nobel Prize was given for Dicke's insight to other scientists less deserving of the award than Dicke, within years of Dicke's criticism of the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:01, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: According to the [http://www.nap.edu/readingroom.php?book=biomems&page=rdicke.html National Academies Press] Dicke was given:
::::::::: ''"the National Medal of Science (1971), the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Sciences (1973), and the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement (1973). He was a member of the National Science Board from 1970 to 1976. Bob was appointed to the Princeton University Department of Physics in 1946, served as chair from 1967 to 1970, moved to emeritus in 1984''.
::::::::: --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:11, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::: Right ... and no [[Nobel Prize]], despite being the finest American physicist of the 20th century. Note also that it was his criticism of relativity in the mid-1970s -- after the awards you cite -- that caused him to be punished by the Nobel Prize committee. No one in grad school or on university faculties dare criticize Relativity again, no matter what the data say. No relativist will even criticize the policy of excluding anyone who criticizes the theory of relativity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::: I am sure the Nobel committee has its prejudices. Hoyle once wrote a letter to the London Times criticizing a Nobel physics prize. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize/print] So maybe they did not like him for that. By the time they gave the big bang prize in 1978, Gamow and others were dead. I would have rather given the prize to the theorists, but those are the biases of the folks in Sweden. I am not sure it has anything to do with the acceptability of relativity. There is a lot of excellent theoretical work that never got a prize, such as the work of Poincare and Minkowski on relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:56, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::: You link to an interesting, in-depth article that gives other possible examples of Nobel Prize bias. But the article misses the timing on the insult to Fred Hoyle -- fall 1983 -- which was around the time that he was challenging a tenet of evolution (I'd like to obtain further details on the timing - his partner in the research apparently raised the criticism as early as 1980). Such a coincidence in timing for a prize that was given for 1957 work can hardly be ignored. Note that the article also says Fowler was "stunned" by the award's passing over Hoyle.

:::::::::::: The article also omits the insults to Teller and Wheeler, to Robert Dicke, and to Raymond Damadian (see explanation in [[Nobel Prize]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::: I am not sure I understand your bias theory, but even supposing that some Swedes have some prejudices, how does this relate to the merits of relativity? You criticize the 1978 prize. But that was for discovery of the cosmic microwave radiation that was predicted by relativity theorists and confirmed by a couple of telephone company engineers who were just trying to measure their satellite reception interference. They did not even believe in the relativity explanation. So why did the Swedes give the prize to the Bell engineers instead of the relativists? Maybe you should start a page on Counterexamples to Swedish Wisdom. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:00, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::: "Swedes" are not picking the Nobel Prize-winners. They just act on the recommendations of [[liberal]] professors who don't like criticism of the theories of evolution, relativity, or [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]]. Really, the bias is not that complicated. It's no different from the bias in [[Academy Award]]s, [[Pulitzer Prize]]s, [[Rhodes Scholar]]s, or any other award system that is heavily influenced by leftists.

:::::::::::::: Once [[Fred Hoyle]] and [[Robert Dicke]] criticized liberal theories, they had to be punished. The greatest punishment is to award the Nobel Prize for their work '''''to someone less deserving'''''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:08, 29 August 2011 (EDT)

== Standard kilogrammes? ==
I'm not sure how good an argument this is. ONE out of a batch of 40 identical standard kilogrammes has diverged in weight from the others. Common sense says that there's something wrong with that one weight, which is after all stored in France. It's not likely that the answer has anything to do with relativity, which if correct would have caused an identical change in mass in all 40. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:06, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: I have a drawer full of socks. I cannot find a match for one of them. Can I blame relativity? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:04, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::Is it a French sock? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 08:14, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Maybe so. Or from some other country where "kilogram" is spelled "kilogramme". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:51, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

::::That would be everywhere except the USA. I'm English. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 21:24, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
:I believe that it has something to do with the metals used are slightly radioactive and are emitting either alpha or beta particles causing a very slight decrease in weight. The answer doesn't have anything to do with relativity and is a well know issue. Scientists are currently trying to come up with a better way of standardizing mass. [[User:CaseyF|CaseyF]] 19:56, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::There's a difference between relativity and quantum mechanics (which explains the above observation). If you only took high school physics--you have about two hundred years of catching up to do on the field. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

==Ummmm...==

Physics has come a long way since Albert Einstein published his theories of relativity. Actually, there are quite a few hypothetical paradigms within modern physics that would allow a particle of sufficiently high energy to apparently travel faster than light. I'm not a physicist (as I've said on other pages, I'm a biologist), but I am peripherally familiar with a few of the better-supported ideas. I suggest you read up on M theory and string theory. At the risk of butchering the explanation (I am NOT a physicist), I will say that within the paradigm of M theory and string theory, observing high-energy particles moving slightly faster than light is not all that surprising. That said, the authors of the paper describing the "faster than light" neutrinos, admit up front that the numbers they got was probably the result of some sort of experimental error--the results need to be repeatable in order to be scientific. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:49, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2011-09-22T21:59:30Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Yes */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes

Perhaps in the past homosexuals were not responsible for dictatorships but they will be in the future. As a part of the Homosexual Agenda they will create a world (unless we stop them) in which at first gay marriage will be legal, then, step two, it will be considered hate speech to speak out against the sin of homosexuality, from there it's a slippery slope. Maybe people will be 'enouraged' to experience homosexuality for themselves in the future so they will be 'more tolerant' who knows where it can lead if the atheist/homosexual/liberal gang has their way.

::::This is patently ridiculous. The Roman Empire was never particularly free except for the very small minority fortunate enough to be born as aristocratic males. The Nazis were not gay friendly at all, read a book about it--don't just parrot whatever Glenn Beck tells you. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 17:59, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, as well as Jews, Slavs, Romani, and the mentally challenged. Murder is murder, no matter the number killed. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]
:Homosexuality itself does not logically equate to totalitarianism. The argument KStanley makes is irrelevant, "these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms.", by that logic if Nazi Germany encouraged eating oranges then oranges are responsable for totalitarianism. [[User:Euaaan|Euaaan]] 23:19, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Correlations and Causality are distinct. Nazi Germany had 2 types of gays, the Butches and the Fems. Nazis persecuted some fems, but promoted many butches to death camp guards, and used other gays for hit squad cannon fodder. if this sounds completely insane, look up the pink swastika, and the many useful and varied sources and references.

: Clarification : many fems were male, and many butches were also male.

:: Conclusion :: Gays as a whole were not to blame for the Nazi ascendancy and ultimate defeat. Hatred of the homoerotic idea was also not completely involved on either side of the Nazi-counterNazi debate.

with love of Israel,

thanks for the new sig ;) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (EST)

'''Is this really a topic for discussion??''' [[User:AShep|AShep]] 21:42, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2011-09-22T05:34:10Z

RudrickBoucher: /* It's all about separation of church and state! */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==It's all about separation of church and state!==
(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)

'''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."'''

This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.

Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.

Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.

Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.

Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Is it abberational lust or love?
:Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]

:The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81] Please see: [[Homosexuality]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::Fine, but that's completely irrelevant to what he's saying, which is that conservatives should support gay marriage because the Constitution requires it. He's correct, but then conservatives should also OPPOSE gay marriage because the Bible forbids homosexuality, and the Bible is obviously correct too. The issue seems to be what is more important: the Constitution or the Bible. It's a tricky one. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Were the founding fathers of America pro-homosexuality? In various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Again, that's irrelevant. He's talking about the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
If liberals interpretation of the Constitution is correct, then why was there a U.S Senate chaplain shortly after the U.S. Constitution?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you incapable of sticking to the subject? The Establishment Clause forbids ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and appointing a Chaplain to the Senate for those who want his services isn't establishing a religion. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Does American law borrow from English common law and cite precedence from English common law? How did common law treat sodomy? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's your problem? I'm not TALKING about common law, I'm talking about the CONSTITUTION. RudrickBoucher has brought up a challenging point about what conservatives should think, so can you either stick to the subject or go somewhere else? --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have U.S Senate chaplains been paid for exclusively by believers or do all taxpayers have to contribute to their salaries? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Even the liberals at Wikipedia disagree with you: "For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[43]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law] '''Again, ''' in various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them? '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions? Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
::::::British common law does have valid legal precedence. However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution. The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century. Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::When determining the validity of a law in the United States, the constitution > federal law > state law > local law > British common law. It's that simple.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Richard, first sox, then shoes. Address my question and information rebutting your claim. Is it aberrational lust or love? (and please do address my two citations.) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::It is love. Plain and simple. If you doubt that, I suggest you do my job. Tell a stranger that his life partner has died, that you witnessed it, and that he couldn't simply because their relationship is homosexual instead of heterosexual. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 01:34, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2011-09-21T23:53:48Z

RudrickBoucher: /* It's all about separation of church and state! */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==It's all about separation of church and state!==
(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)

'''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."'''

This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.

Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.

Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.

Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.

Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Is it abberational lust or love?
:Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]

:The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::Fine, but that's completely irrelevant to what he's saying, which is that conservatives should support gay marriage because the Constitution requires it. He's correct, but then conservatives should also OPPOSE gay marriage because the Bible forbids homosexuality, and the Bible is obviously correct too. The issue seems to be what is more important: the Constitution or the Bible. It's a tricky one. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Were the founding fathers of America pro-homosexuality? In various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Again, that's irrelevant. He's talking about the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
If liberals interpretation of the Constitution is correct, then why was there a U.S Senate chaplain shortly after the U.S. Constitution?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you incapable of sticking to the subject? The Establishment Clause forbids ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and appointing a Chaplain to the Senate for those who want his services isn't establishing a religion. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Does American law borrow from English common law and cite precedence from English common law? How did common law treat sodomy? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's your problem? I'm not TALKING about common law, I'm talking about the CONSTITUTION. RudrickBoucher has brought up a challenging point about what conservatives should think, so can you either stick to the subject or go somewhere else? --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have U.S Senate chaplains been paid for exclusively by believers or do all taxpayers have to contribute to their salaries? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Even the liberals at Wikipedia disagree with you: "For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[43]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law] '''Again, ''' in various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them? '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions? Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
::::::British common law does have valid legal precedence. However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution. The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century. Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::When determining the validity of a law in the United States, the constitution > federal law > state law > local law > British common law. It's that simple.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:53, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2011-09-21T23:48:11Z

RudrickBoucher: /* It's all about separation of church and state! */

{{Talk:Same-sex marriage/pov }}

=="The rationale goes like this" is completly wrong==
"The rationale goes like this:

Marriage is good.
No one can criticize what is good.
A same-sex union, defined as marriage, is good.
Therefore, no one can criticize same-sex unions."

That is ''not'' the Liberal rationale for legalizing gay marriage, if that is going to remain there there should be at least a few sources as to which Leberal said that.

The ''actual'' liberal rational:

* Marriage, like '''all''' institutions of the law, should not be defined by ''one'' or ''any'' specefic religion, or religion all together.

* The fact that the legallity of Gay marriage is the debate proves its a matter of law, automatically disqualifing any given religions say on it. ''See also: [[seperation of church and state]]''

* Atheists can and do get married, further proof it isn't a religious establishment.

* A homosexuals person's life has nothing to do with ''yours'', and because homosexuallity does not violate any human rights, ''you'' should not have the right to tell them they cannot get married.

I realize this is conservapedia and you guys would rather have untruthful things that make you sound right, but reality is better than ''sounding'' right if you ask me.

==Bias==
I do not feel the article is from a neutral point of view. This article seems to be obviously against gay marriage. I also propose that the statistics for spousal abuse in heterosexual relationships are put up beside the homosexual statistics for a comparison. I personally believe not allowing homosexual marriage is not allowing equal freedoms for all people. Also I do not think the reason for not allowing gay marriage should be the bible, as not only should there be a complete separation between church and state, but Athiests and Agnostics are not stopped from getting married, neither should homosexuals.[[User:Strata|Strata]] 23:40, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree completely that there is bias here. It's one thing to be against same-sex marriage, but it's ridiculous to insinuate that same-sex marriage as an attack on heterosexual marriage. [[User:Forthewin827|Forthewin827]] 15:22, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Are opinions like that really necessary? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

==Is page protected?==
B/c I wanted to edit it, but I can't.
[[User:Won4tide1|Won4tide1]] 17:41, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is. Please post your suggested changes here first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Addition to Rationale ==

<big>There is another rationale used by proponents of same sex marriage.</big>

Essentially it is as follows: 

Marriage exists as both a religiously and legally defined entity in the United States. 

Marriage confers certain legal benefits upon those married. Additionaly marriage has social value in that it is used as a signifier of individuals' commitment to one another 

There is a legal tradition in this country which holds that sexual orientation is not a valid status upon which one may deny legal rights or protections. 

The refusal to recognize same sex marriage constitutes such a denial of legal rights and protections. Since those in a same sex marriage are, by definition, homosexual- this constitutes a denial of legal rights and protections based upon sexual orientation. 

Refusing to recognize same sex marriages essentially violates long standing legal traditions. 

The most logical remedy to this situation is to allow the recognition of same sex marriages. 

<big>There is also a philosophical justification that same sex marriage does not destroy the institution of marriage in society.</big>

In most religious traditions, marriage exclusively recognizes the sacred bond of love between a man and woman. 

However society has a more general definition of marriage as an institution that recognizes the profound (and one could still say sacred) bond of love existing between two individuals- traditionally a man and woman. 

Recognizing same sex marriage recognizes the legitimacy of the bond of love between same sex partners. 

However the religious definition of marriage is still unique in that it specifically focuses upon the devine blessing of the union between a man and a woman. Thus this traditional sense of marriage retains its unique character. 

I think that it is important to add these rationales because these are the ones that you are most likely to encounter in the discourse on gay marriage. Those looking for information on the subject would be best served by being able to read the most commonly used rationales.

== Adding mores links ==

The article seems fine at this point, but it could use some more links to other Conservapedia articles after the introduction. I thought it was a little odd that editing was disabled in this article, or else I would have added the links myself. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== What? ==

Why is this marriage in inverted commas (quotes)? And why does it say that the purpose of same-sex marriage is to "destroy the sanctity of marriage"? In what doctrine supporting same sex marriage is that said?
:I think they are saying that that is liberals' true purpose (intention), even if the people supporting same-sex marriage don't actually say it and openly admit it. --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 16:50, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

==Supporting Gay Marriage==

By and large proponents of Gay Marriage only support removing the states role in prohibiting marriage; they still cannot force religious institutions to marry homosexuals. In other words, even if the Government deemed gay marriage to be ok, the religious institutions would still have all the power. After all, marriage is a union between a man and a woman under God - Why should the State have its neck involved in that? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:49, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*I agree with you here, Graham. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:27, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*From what I know the proponents of gay Marriage do ''not'' seek to force religion to do ''anything'', and while religious practices may change in the long run just as society changes... In my mind an alternative to gay marriage, a ''better'' alternative (Also since the United States separates church from state and marriage is religious)

Would be civil unions for ANY arrangement, i.e. MM,FF,MF, and make marriage a religious ceremony. Thus any two people could have the legal benefits of marriage, but under legal (state) terminology while if two people want to get married. The local Pastor, Rabbi, or Imam can do that and discriminate in who they partner up.

All these people want is to be happy, part of that is mutual trust and security, and that comes from Civil Unions, Marriage, whatever you want to call it. But seriously, this would work to keep marriage 'sacred' while Homosexuals could unionize with their partner. [[User:Nateland|Nateland]] 19:05, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

The Unitarian church, among others, performs same sex weddings.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 17:05, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

:I don't get it. People can be friends, with mutual trust and all that. I can even give my unmarried fried a [[power of attorney]] to handle things like me being in a coma and needing decisions about medical care. What does marriage have to do with "legal privileges for adults"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

== This sentence is gramatically wrong... ==

"It is also referred to as "[[homosexuality|gay]] marriage" or "[[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage", is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex."

and since I just got yelled at, maybe someone else can fix it. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

==Tremendous pressure... needs revision==
<blockquote>Combined with hate speech rules and hate crime laws, a government certification of "same-sex marriage" will place tremendous pressure on people who criticize homosexuality, oppose the gay agenda, or believe in the sanctity of marriage.[Citation Needed] "How do you know we're not married?" would be the simplest of rejoinders. Or, "How dare you criticize my spouse!" (see fighting words).</blockquote>

Same-sex marriage is already legal in Massachusetts and in several other countries, so if this assertion of "tremendous pressure" is true, it should be easy to find cite-able examples of it. I've had no luck thus far, so perhaps someone else should try... if not, we'll have to remove this section, because the article is seriously weakened by assertions we can't justify. Also, we need a working definition of the sanctity of marriage -- I'm sure that many people, churches, groups, etc. consider same-sex marriage perfectly sanctified, so we need to be more specific. I'm removing the language for now, and please, if you put it back in, clarify what is meant by 'sanctity.' Also, the 'fighting words' link appears to be dead, so I'm removing it.

Cheers!
[[User:Mermaid|Gabe]] 14:58, 13 January 2008 (EST)

==Sauce for you.==
For the homosexual violence statement in the box beneath the spiffy graphic on the upper-right corner of the page: [http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=5a6dc0ec-3807-4f5c-a5ad-c50855986682&k=55181&p=2] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:04, 16 January 2008 (EST)

That article also says that common law relationships (IE live-in but not formally married) are 5 times more likely to experience violence and is the only category seeing growth in violence. Thus, allowing gay marriage would, statistically speaking, reduce domestic violence among homosexual couples. This article actually supports gay marriage from a statistical standpoint....[[User:Kiss20|Kiss20]] 19:28 16, January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah... But let's ignore the facts. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::What facts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::What the study shows. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:45, 24 January 2008 (EST)

:Non sequitur. It isn't saying that abusive people who get married will suddenly stop being abusive, which seems to be your argument. A more logical conclusion is that abusive people are less likely to get married in the first place. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:56, 23 January 2008 (EST)

==Move?==
Seriously, that would be a good idea. It's called same sex marriage throughout the article, why isn't it titled correctly? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:13, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, no? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== A counterfeit counterfeit ==

The following is unintentionally amusing:

Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family refers to the phrase same-sex 'marriage,' with quotation
marks around the word marriage, to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as
well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that he therefore
believes that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."

Why did the author put quotation marks around the word counterfeits? Is it to call attention to his belief that "Dr." Dobson's views on counterfeits are themselves counterfeit? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I see what you're saying, but I think that's just there to show that it's his words, not Conservapedia's. That's something you do with all quotes, agqain, just to show that it's his word(s). --[[User:GeneralGrievous|GeneralGrievous]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Graphic ==

Even if the claim beneath the graphic is true: 1) violence is not a defining characteristic of homosexual marriage--therefore the graphic shouldn't be so prominently displayed here; and 2) the purported cycle of violence is not specific to homosexual relationships--therefore it is inappropriate in an article specifically dedicated to homosexual marriage. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:09, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I was unaware that "homosexual marriage" had '''any''' defining characteristics. It's only a counterfeit, a sham aimed at destroying real marriage. This article is not "dedicated" to homosexual marriage; rather, it exposed the counterfeiting of marriage which [[gay rights]] activists are using to destroy marriage.

:We have no obligation here to respect sin - don't even try that line of argument. Homosexuality is sinful - and it makes people miserable. Why should we respect it? Do your "respect" the "choice" of adults to have sex with children? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:13, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If homosexual marriage is legal somewhere, does it not therefore exist? I fail to see how the argument of respect (which somewhat disingenuously equates homosexuality and pedophilia) has anything to do with whether it exists or not. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:36, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Laws permitting this sham are on the books in various places. But giving one thing the same name as another thing doesn't validate it. Once again, the article is not about homosexuals "marrying" - or should not be.

:::It should be about the laws and their purpose. It should illuminate the goals of the [[gay rights movement]] and compare their reasoning with the reality of their purpose, as well as the effect those laws are having.

:::The pathetic attempt to gain love from a sexual partner of the some gender is at the root of this. As [[Richard Cohen]] pointed out - drawing of course on the work of better-educated scientists like Socarides - it's a [[same-sex attachment disorder]]. And by the way, voting [[homosexuality]] out of the manual of psychiatric disorders doesn't change the fact that it's a disorder and a perversion.

:::Legalizing sin and craziness doesn't make it good, any more than calling spoiled food wholesome. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It's really sad to see people like Ed be so bigoted. I take comfort in the fact that by the end of my lifetime, gays will have equal rights.

== move page ==

Can this page be moved to [[Homosexual marriage]], which is a better term for this -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 22:53, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
:Same-sex marriage seems more precise. Bisexual people can marry a person of the same gender, so "Homosexual marriage" is a bit of a misnomer. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 14:21, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== Out of Date. ==

This article is out of date. Norway allows gay "people" to have equal marriage rights as well. -- Dollfuss.

== I have a question ==

I'm only 16, and maybe there is some sort of generational gap on this issue, but I'm curious to know why people care so much about the homosexual marriage issue? I just haven't ever found the arguments for or against it compelling or relevant. Any thoughts? Questions, maybe? {{Unsigned|Hedgy}} -- 21:23, 13 May 2009

*Welcome, Hedgy. [[Marriage]] isn't a generational issue, nor one between Conservative's and Liberals. Conservapedia's own article on [[Marriage]] states it plainly:

<blockquote>
The unity between a man and a woman in marriage is an expression of the relationship that [[God]] desires to have with his creation. The first marriage occurred nearly 6,000 years ago in the Garden of Eden, in the area of the world that we now know as the Middle East. The first couple was Adam and Eve.
</blockquote>

:[[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton]], [[John McCain]], [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Dinesh D'Souza]] all agree on the matter, that Marriage should be exclusively defined as a union between a man and a woman. Check out the link I have made here to "Marriage" to read more about this. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:43, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
But why do people care so much? Why don't people live and let live on this issue? Why don't we create a separate institution specifically for gay people who want to be married. I don't know what we could call it, I'll think of that later. I've never understood why people care so much on this issue. Personally, I couldn't care less if gay people are allowed to be married, I just hate it when gay people try to flaunt their sexuality and act all offended when you get angry at them. It's a private thing.

Well to respond to your earlier statement, to create a separate institution specifically for gay unions and nothing else would violate the strikedown of "separate but equal" established in Brown V. Board in the 1960s. --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Same-sex marriage is just a way to confuse and mislead [[public school]] students as young as kindergarteners and first graders about marriage. In Massachusetts, the public schools immediately began teaching propaganda to young students once same-sex marriage was adopted there, and courts rejected a legal challenge to it. Same-sex marriage is also a way to censor the Bible and call it "hate speech."

: Smoking reduces lifespan by several years. The [[homosexual]] lifestyle reduces average lifespan by even more than smoking does, yet this information is withheld from students.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:49, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: But doesn't denying the rights of homosexuals just undermine the choice we have as humans? I mean, if we don't have moral choice, then we aren't people, are we?--[[User:Hedgy|Hedgy]] 22:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Outing==
''One type of emotional abuse--threatening to "out" a partner to family, friends, or employers--is unique to homosexual and bi-sexual relationships. Legalization of so-called "gay marriage" still would not end this type of abuse. Although communication between married partners would be classified as privileged and any given partner would be legally obligated to refuse to disclose information without the consent of his/his mate [16], anonymous leaking to the media has been known to happen and the prospect of suffering a "Haggardesque" [17] fate is sufficient to allow manipulative tactics such as blackmail.'' 
Maybe it's just because I've had a long day, but I'm not seeing what outing has to do with same-sex marriage. Civil marriage is a matter of public record, isn't it? So anyone entering into a gay marriage would do so with the understanding that it might lead to others being aware that the members of the couple are gay, right? So how does outing fit in? And blackmail seems very much a stretch - who would pay to prevent someone talking about a matter of public record? Why would anyone wanting to keep a homosexual relationship a secret decide to get married? Is there something I'm missing? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:48, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

*Tired or not, your point is well taken. I removed that part. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]! One more statement jumped out at me: ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners. (2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005)'' How would getting married make someone seek more partners? Isn't it just the opposite, at least ideally? (It certainly is for my marriage!) I was hoping the reference would enlighten me, but it didn't include a link. I searched and came up with [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/051124/dq051124b-eng.htm two] [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm sites], neither of which said anything at all about gay marriage. After more looking, I found [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-570-x/85-570-x2006001-eng.pdf this], which noted that "spousal violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with heterosexual couples: 15% and 7% respectively. It was not possible to calculate
rates of spousal violence for male and female couples separately due to low sample sizes." That's something to be concerned about, but it doesn't relate to the statement that ''Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.'' (As an aside, Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005, and the reference was to a 2004 study, so the couples in question were not married couples.) --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 00:11, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

==Issues==
I've got a lot of concerns about the information in this paragraph. Most of these claims either have no relevance to same-sex marriage, are heavily biased or poorly documented. I'd like to give some examples:

1. The Dobson/Kurtz quote constitutes a baseless accusation against proponents of same-sex marriage. According to the author, their motive is not to seek equal rights, but to destroy the institution of marriage per se. Where is there any evidence of this? If homosexual couples didn't really want to marry, why did they turn out in huge numbers to do so in every state that gave them the opportunity to do so? In my opinion, this is nothing more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

2. How does the fact that adopted children are being raised by homosexual couples constitute an "issue"? Care to elaborate?

3. Even if it were a fact that incidences of partner abuse are more common among homosexual couples, how would allowing them to marry have any effect on this? And according to the posting in the "outing" section, the claim about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners" is both undocumented and counterintuitive.

I hope you won't mind addressing these concerns. In my opinion, this whole paragraph lacks any merit and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch. -- Hubertus

: Yes, the Dobson/Kurtz quote is an opinion, but it is a commonly held belief on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. It is clearly labeled as opinion. Even if it is a conspiracy view, it is a relevant view. Adoption is relevant because adoption by homosexual couples is frequent cited by both sides of the same-sex marriage debate. Some say that marriage provides stability for those adopted kids. Others say that the homosexual couple should not be adopting kids anyway. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:29, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

OK then, would anybody mind if I edit the article to flag this quote as a completely unfounded conspiracy view, which seems to be something that we agree on? And while I'm at it, I would amend the paragraph about adoptions to allow listing of pro- and contra-opinions. Finally, I'd remove the line about "allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners", because apparently, nobody has been able to back it up with any evidence since Hsmom inquired about it almost a month ago. -- Hubertus

*You have a lot of nerve, coming here as a troll to try and cast doubt/throw dirt on our conservative POV, "Hubertus". You have made no other edits to this encyclopedia, and only posted to this one topic, to dispute a narrow item. --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:51, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

:: I do not agree that the quote is a "completely unfounded conspiracy view". Much of it is clearly true. I do agree with removing the statement: "Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners." There is a source for it, but it seems unlikely to me and requires explanation at the least. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:26, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

== I just want to know. ==

I really do not understand this.

The reasons that conservatives object to same-sex marriages don't make sense. Over the years I've heard:

*It is a sin against God according to the Bible.
**Same-sex marriage is currently a governmental issue. According to the separation of church and state, biblical texts have no weight in legal matters.

*It hurts the institution of marriage.
**If your marriage were to feel less meaningful to you if gays were to marry, then that is an problem with the confidence of you and your partner's relationship, not the institution of marriage.

*It is unhealthy.
**There are the same health risks as with heterosexual marriage. STDs can be passed between heterosexual couple too.

I am not angry, I just want to know why conservatives feel the way they do. (unsigned by Dacheatbot)

::Point 1, same-sex marriage is an attempt to discredit the Bible. The homosexual lifestyle is anti-marriage. The attempt by the homosexual movement to co-opt marriage is an attempt to marginalize the Bible, which flatly prohibits and warns against endorsement of the lifestyle. Also, there is "separation of church and state," which is an example of liberal [[deceit]].

::Point 2, same-sex marriage hurts the institution just as polygamy would. Are you saying you'd support polygamy too? Both devalue marriage in culture.

::Point 3, the homosexual lifestyle is less healthy, much less healthy, than the heterosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle shortens lifespan significantly. Why should society encourage that? It shouldn't.

::Open your mind and look at this objectively. The logic is hard to dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:10, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::1. How is homosexual marriage "anti-marriage"? It IS marriage. Marriage is not all about having kids. It is the union of two people who love each other. If you think differently, then you don't understand marriage well enough to block people from engaging in the institution.
:::2. I made absolutely no comments on polygamy. I do however have no qualms with polygamy as long as:
::::1. All members of the marriage are of sound mind and agree whole-heartedly
::::2. All members of the marriage do feel love for each other and that is the sole reason for marriage.
:::Those statements are why people get married.
:::3. How does homosexuality shorten lifespan? True, gays are more likely to contract STDs if they go without protection, but so are heterosexuals.
:::--[[User:Dacheatbot|Dacheatbot]] 19:34, 15 December 2009 (EST)
:::Thanks for asking, Dacheatbot. On the first point, because it's a sin against God, we want to discourage people from sinning in this manner. What's more, with the current anti-discrimination laws, Christians will be prevented from treating homosexual couples differently from opposite-sex married couples. (Example: Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption services in Massachusetts after they refused to place children with homosexual "married" couples.)
:::I agree with Andy: homosexual "marriage" hurts traditional marriage just like calling any other non-marriage "marriage" would. When you've heard a name three thousand times to describe something not that good, it seems less worthwhile to you. Example: After Scandinavia legalized homosexual "marriage", all marriage rates plummeted.
:::Again, though I don't have any good sources at the moment, Andy's described the health risks exactly right.
:::If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask politely like you've done.--[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:23, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::Evan, as I said before, biblical texts do not have any basis for law. Strictly following the rules of one religion makes a government that does not separate itself from the church, as a government needs to be in order to be fair. I'm not against the freedom of religion, as everyone has the right to believe what he or she chooses. However, imposing your religious values upon others violates their religious freedom.
DaCheatBot, besides ignoring our naming conventions, you've also made a number of illogical points here. First, you're assuming what you are attempting to prove: that homosexual "marriage" is marriage. You can't use that claim to support your argument, because that's what you want to prove, not a fact accepted by all sides. Gay "marriage" isn't marriage anymore than a pet rock is a real pet. Second, you endorse polygamy, which frankly leaves me astounded. Why not allow people to marry animals? Why not allow people to kill and steal? Are you against the entire Bible, or just most of it? Which brings me to your third point - that the Bible has no place in law. Believe what you want, but the Bible is the origin of all law. I suggest you read it sometime. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 15 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize for the name, I was not aware that it was a violation.

The idea that gay marriage is marriage is not an illogical idea. It is the union of people who love each other. That is what marriage is. And just to respond to your analogy, a pet rock is not the same as a real pet because it does not fit the qualifications. Gay marriage does because it fits the idea that I said before on that it is based on love. A person marrying an animal is not love (Not romantic love anyway) because the animal is not able to give consent of sound mind. Killing and stealing also cause great harm to others, unlike gay marriage, which does absolutely nothing to others. Lastly, the bible may have been the foundation of law, but we have made many, many changes. While certain may have been right all along, such as murder and stealing, others are not because they follow a culture that is thousands of years old. The same way that the original American Constitution is not used in a court of law, but the amended version, the one that defines men and women as equals as well as whites and blacks as equals.(unsigned by Dacheatbot)

:Dacheatbot, please sign your comments by clicking the signature bar (10th one in from the left) at the end, or simply write your name, so we can see who said what.

:Polygamy is based on love also. Marrying a family member could be also. And, yes, people love animals too. The homosexual movement is essentially anti-marriage, and it is only in the past 15 years that it made "marriage" a priority. Why? Because it enables them to legitimize a lifestyle that is essentially anti-marriage. It is also an anti-Bible movement, part of a desire to marginalize and demonize the Bible. If you support same-sex marriage, then I bet you don't read the Bible anymore. The concept is effective at alienating people from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:35, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::The rhetoric above, critiquing traditional marriage and promoting same-sex unions, are rich fields of ideas. Let's mine them for their actual content.

::The [[Gay rights movement]] is well-financed and eminently clever. I suggest we analyze, digest and describe their arguments. Here's an example.

::#If people love each other, it's okay for them to marry.
::#Therefore, a parent and his child may marry. Or a brother and sister may marry.

::However, this violates the [[incest]] rule which has traditionally forbade sexual relations between persons who are too closely related to be married.

::[[Gay rights]] advocates want the old rules to be discarded, but they are too clever to come right and say, "We don't care what the Bible says; we're simply going to fornicate, right or wrong." Rather their strategy has been to convince Christians that the Bible "doesn't really forbid" homosexual relations. It is our job here to expose and critique this campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:33, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Homosexual denial]]==

Here's an example of propaganda:

* Proponents of same-sex marriage do not have any one single view of their efforts that would unify them as a "movement."

It is common for homosexuality advocates to deny the existence of the [[gay rights movement]] and/or to pretend that they are not part of it. Let's confront this denial by exposing it and telling the truth.

Better to say that there are various views on same-sex marriage amongst its proponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:And can you indisputably prove, in general, what you just stated? --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 19:13, 18 June 2010 (EDT)

== "One man, one woman" God-given? ==

Our own article on polygamy states that while the Bible forbids polyandry (several men marrying the same woman), polygyny (several women marrying the same man) is explicitly allowed and was practiced throughout much of Biblical history. I don't think that we can draw the conclusion that the "one woman" part is God-given. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 10:34, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Sorry, I was generalizing from [[Unificationism|my own religion]] to Christianity as a whole. Let's research what various Christians and/or churches say about "one man, one woman".

:The Old Testament has a number of cases where a man of God - seen as an outstanding example of goodness and a role model (of sorts) - has multiple wives or concubines.
:*Abraham, when childless, used [[Hagar]] to pass on the lineage
:*Jacob had two wives; the second gave birth to [[Joseph]]

:When did the idea that marriage should be only two people (one male, one female) come about? Who says it's of God, and who says otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:07, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::I think if you check your Bible, you'll find that each man should have his own '''wife''', and each woman her own husband. That's 1 Corinth. 7:2. [[User:AdeleM|AdeleM]] 17:29, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's not a commandment (1 Corinth. 7:6), and Paul would actually prefer people not to marry at all (that's where the Roman Catholics get priesthood celibacy from). On the other hand, bishops are explicitly required to be married to just one wife in both 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, indicating that non-bishops may have had several wives. In fact the source our polygamy article cites for the biblical prohibition of polyandry strongly argues that polygyny is not forbidden by God. I'd assume the change in sentiment was probably due to greco-roman ideas of family and marriage. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 19:02, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Adam and Eve pretty much set the standard, wouldn't you say? There have been only very rare exceptions in the Bible since that beginning. A very rare exception does not change the rule.

::::Same-sex marriage as a political movement, by the way, is anti-Bible in its agenda, because same-sex marriage has been used (e.g., in Massaschusetts) to teach an anti-biblical lifestyle to children.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:39, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::I think it's also important to note the context of the exceptions. Jacob had two wives because Laban engaged in [[deception,]] substituting his older daughter for the younger. The multiple marriages were the result of two factors: Rachel's desire not to shame and disgrace her older sister, and Jacob's unfaltering love for Rachel.
:::::Furthermore, the multiple marriages were always focused on fulfilling the commandment "be fruitful and multiply." Time and time again, the reason was the same: the continued birth of children in order to ensure that the family would remain strong. This is not something same-sex marriage can achieve. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ben, you're a genius. Thanks for your insights here!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::Ditto. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:08, 18 December 2009 (EST)

=="Interesting" law against Polygamy==

I would like to point out that defining marriage as being between two people and two people only is not "an interesting consequence" that outlaws polygamy, as the introduction states. Marriage was defined that way specifically to outlaw polygamy, which has been practiced by several religious sects in the United States. I would like to delete this sentence, as it makes it sound like outlawing polygamy was just a happy coincidence due to the framing of the law, which is a completely erroneous conclusion. [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 11:58, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:You may be thinking of another law, but the article explicitly mentions the [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which was enacted in 1996. At that point, polygamy already was illegal throughout the United States (for about a hundred and fifty years, I believe), so outlawing it probably wasn't the DOMA's purpose. [[User:Yoritomo|Yoritomo]] 14:36, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::This is exactly my point. That the DOMA is worded to exclude polygamy is not an "interesting coincidence", it is a reflection of the established law of the land since before Utah joined the Union. (Specifically, *because* Utah wanted to join the Union.) [[User:JEMBenton|JEMBenton]] 15:26, 17 December 2009 (EST)

==It's all about separation of church and state!==
(or, why supporting gay marriage is a conservative position)

'''"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."'''

This is pretty plain and simple, it is unconstitutional to legislate from the basis of scripture or religious dogma. The fact of the matter is that marriage, as a legal construct, is a contract that grants certain special privileges and legal entitlements to the parties involved. Married couples in the United States, with or without children, enjoy benefits such as shared healthcare coverage, joint income tax filing, shared parental rights of natural or adopted children, next-of-kin status in the event of medical emergencies, and many other rights. These things are provided because it assumed that, once married, a couple becomes a family unit.

Denying these rights to two people who love each other, and are in a committed relationship, simply on the basis of whether the relationship is heterosexual or homosexual creates an unnecessary legal distinction between two classes of people (more laws = bigger government). If two gay men spend their lives together, effectively as a family unit, it is ethically reprehensible that they cannot apply for the same legal protections as a straight couple with a similar arrangement.

Marriage is not specifically intended for couples intent on raising children. People who are sterile can still get married. Arguing that marriage is an institution for raising children then calls into question the validity of all of every marriage that has failed to produce children. The only argument against allowing two people of the same sex, who are committed to each other, to legally marry is derived from religious tradition. While this religious tradition should be respected, it is not legal (per the first amendment to the US constitution) to legislate using religious tradition as a precedent.

Is that to say that churches opposed to gay marriages should be forced to perform them? No, because that is also unconstitutional. The church (or temple, or synagogue, or mosque), is free to decide it's own religious definition of marriage. However, the state definition of marriage must, by constitutional imperative, be defined in secular terms. To define that the parties involved be "one man and one woman", without secular justification or precedent, is to unnecessarily extend governmental regulation into citizens' private lives.

Opposing the unmitigated expansion of government regulation is one of the core values that defines the conservative movement; so is the protection of the constitution. Supporting gay marriage both promulgates minimal legislation and observes the letter of the first amendment to the constitution. Therefore, support of gay marriage should, in fact, be a conservative position. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Is it abberational lust or love?
:Another study involving male homosexuality examined the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexual men and was published in the Journal of Sex Research in 1997.[79] This study of male homosexuality found that 2.7 percent of these men claimed to have had sex with one partner only. [80]

:The David P. McWhirter, M.D., and Andrew M. Mattison, M.S.W., Ph.D. study reported in their 1984 work The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop stated that in regards to relationships involving male homosexuality that "all couples with a relationship lasting more than 5 years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships."[81] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::Fine, but that's completely irrelevant to what he's saying, which is that conservatives should support gay marriage because the Constitution requires it. He's correct, but then conservatives should also OPPOSE gay marriage because the Bible forbids homosexuality, and the Bible is obviously correct too. The issue seems to be what is more important: the Constitution or the Bible. It's a tricky one. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:10, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Were the founding fathers of America pro-homosexuality? In various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Again, that's irrelevant. He's talking about the Constitution, specifically the Establishment Clause. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:18, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
If liberals interpretation of the Constitution is correct, then why was there a U.S Senate chaplain shortly after the U.S. Constitution?[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Are you incapable of sticking to the subject? The Establishment Clause forbids ESTABLISHMENT of a religion, and appointing a Chaplain to the Senate for those who want his services isn't establishing a religion. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Does American law borrow from English common law and cite precedence from English common law? How did common law treat sodomy? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:What's your problem? I'm not TALKING about common law, I'm talking about the CONSTITUTION. RudrickBoucher has brought up a challenging point about what conservatives should think, so can you either stick to the subject or go somewhere else? --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have U.S Senate chaplains been paid for exclusively by believers or do all taxpayers have to contribute to their salaries? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:28, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
Even the liberals at Wikipedia disagree with you: "For example, following the American Revolution in 1776, one of the first legislative acts undertaken by each of the newly independent states was to adopt a "reception statute" that gave legal effect to the existing body of English common law to the extent that American legislation or the Constitution had not explicitly rejected English law.[43]"[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law] '''Again, ''' in various states, were there anti-sodomy laws during the post independence colonial period and did any of the founding fathers of America object to them? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Still irrelevant. This is a discussion about the Establishment Clause, not common law, promiscuity or what the idiots at Sickipedia say. --[[User:FindlayT|FindlayT]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Again, what does British common law say about sodomy? Again, did post independence colonial America heavily borrow from English common law? Again, did post independent colonial America states have ant-sodomy laws and did the founding fathers object to them? '''Why won't you answer a few simple questions? Is your case that weak? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:43, 21 September 2011 (EDT)'''
::::::British common law does have valid legal precedence. However, you seem to be arguing that observation of British common law should precede observance of the constitution. The British anti-sodomy statutes were both grounded in church doctrine (rendering them unconstitutional here) and all repealed in Britain during the 20th century. Furthermore, American laws take precedence over British common law, and American anti-sodomy statutes were all nullified (found unconstitutional) by the supreme court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. Finally, British common law only defines marriage as being between "two people".--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 19:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Same-sex marriage

2011-09-21T22:56:06Z

RudrickBoucher:

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-20T01:00:52Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm */

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student ==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the [[Origin of Life]]: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]], are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011
::::We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a [[Atheism|significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion]]? If so, which ones? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Words change in meaning. For example people still talk about "the exception which proves the rule," a saying which makes no sense whatsoever. The reason it makes no sense whatsoever is that now we use "prove" to mean "confirm," whereas when that saying was coined it meant to TEST. I don't care what Cicero or the ancient Greeks took atheism to mean any more than I care what some 50 year old encyclopaedias take it to mean or than I care that "distaff" now means female descent but used to be a spinning implement. The fact is that atheism now means a lack of belief in gods, and that's the ground we have to fight on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history HERE] and [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html HERE] and [http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA1/genesisrecord.asp HERE]. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read [http://books.google.com/books?id=OXoefj6r-_0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=chance+cover+for+ignorance+quote+sproule&source=bl&ots=GtwbYTbfLt&sig=BbLC1HwH1ohYinXnauDLyCUpMOU&hl=en&ei=SRNzTuPAErDH0AGX-ZS1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false this]. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
:::::Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
:::::Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
:::::I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852327/?tool=pmcentrez here] and [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::Thanks for the references, they were interesting but they don't really resolve the problem. I have no issue with the idea of gene duplication adding the necessary material for a smaller structure (the T3SS) to evolve into a larger one, but the problem is in the application of evolutionary theory to that. If we take E coli with 44 genes involved in coding the flagellum, and say that 25 of these coded for a fully functional ancestral secretory system, it's certainly possible for gene duplication to result in a still-functional SS with 44 genes, and the 19 non-coding genes will be free from selection pressure and able to mutate pretty freely. However for natural selection to turn this SS into a flagellum you need one of two things: Firstly you could have a series of plausible intermediate structures, each of which is beneficial and therefore selected for, and each of which results from a mutation of ONE of the non-coding genes in the SS. You don't have such a series; I'm aware that one coincidentally exists for the vertebrate eye, which is why "eyes couldn't evolve" is an argument I'd never use, but there isn't one here. Secondly you could have simultaneous complementary mutation of ALL 19 non-coding genes to take you from the SS to a functional flagellum, which obviously would then be selected for; the odds against this strain even even scientific notation.

:::::::::In my opinion this IS a valid argument against evolution, and while you can certainly point to a lot of homologies between flagellum genes and others within the cell I don't think you can bridge the gap between the T3SS and the flagellum. I know that many scientists are trying to resolve this issue, and I think their eventual failure to do so is a lot more likely to show them the truth of creationism than the "Question Evolution!" campaign, which in my opinion is mostly intended to give its originators something to congratulate themselves about and certainly has no chance of making any inroads in the scientific community. Anyway I'm wary of breaking the 90/10 rule here, so please feel free to email me and we can discuss it further. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:22, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::RudrickBoucher, I suggest you add your answers to the [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:27, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that [[abiogenesis]] was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!".[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] In short, it is part of the evolutionary paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a paradigm as "a '''philosophical''' and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why the origin of life is called "chemical evolution" by evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the "General Theory of Evolution" is the one developed by Darwin in the 1840s and it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis DECADES ago. Why argue against a theory that evolutionists abandoned in the 1930s? Tell them it doesn't answer the 15 questions and they're just going to shrug and say "Yeah, we know. So what?" As for chemical evolution, abiogenesis is only ONE way in which the term is used; it's also used to describe the cascade of elements formed by fusion inside stars, and quite clearly THAT isn't part of evolutionary theory either. By using non-standard definitions of what evolutionary theory is you're just opening yourself up to accusations of making strawman arguments. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution and we shouldn't be claiming that it is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:52, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution". Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, given your propensity to not adequately respond to posts directed towards you, I cannot say I read your post with any degree of due diligence and I merely browsed it. Secondly, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You might consider reading the post above which I just posted. By the way, given your propensity to not adequately respond to the post directed towards you and being very similar to a brick wall, I may move from merely browsing your posts to not reading them at all. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::My "obsession," as you put it, with these two articles comes from my concern at the spread of atheism and evolutionism and my desire to do something about it. Something that might actually WORK, that is, rather than asking ridiculous questions about "living fossils" that evolutionists are only unable to answer because they're laughing so hard. As for brick walls, would they resemble the ones erected around any article you've decided you own on here?

::::::::Feel free to stop reading my posts any time you like; that's your right.--[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Sam, if you sincerely want to stop the spread of atheism and evolutionism create some new articles on [[atheism]] and [[evolution]]. This is something which I don't believe you have done yet. Here is a list of some of the articles that need to be created: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Atheism_Project [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::That's where we disagree. I DON'T think most of these articles need to be created, and many of them could actually be counter-productive. What's the point of an article on "Atheism and God"? What's it going to say - "They don't believe in Him"? What is the "Atheism and Obesity" article intended to achieve? Are people supposed to accept Christ as part of a weight loss plan? You've pointed out elsewhere that this article is 20 pages long, and indeed it is. On the other hand CP's article on hydrogen - which is only the most abundant and important element in the entire universe - is barely more than a stub. Are we trying to create a valuable resource where people can find useful information without being subjected to the biases of Wikipedia - a trustworthy encyclopaedia, in other words - or just have some fun calling PZ Myers a gutbucket? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::I suspected that you are an atheist and that you would not create any new evolution or atheism articles. Of course, this further confirms my suspicions. You did say that you don't think MOST of these articles need to be created. It will be very telling if you don't create any new atheism or evolution articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:09, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::It will indeed: it'll tell you that I don't think these articles are worth creating. I have explained exactly WHY I don't think they're worth creating and it has nothing to do with me being an atheist, which of course is utter rubbish. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:17, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::You said MOST of those atheism articles don't need to be created. That means you believe SOME of those atheism articles need to be created. Of course, if you don't create any, it will confirm my suspicion that you are an atheist. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK, I'll state my opinion a bit more clearly: I don't think ANY of these articles actually NEED to be created, and most of them SHOULDN'T be. An issue like state atheism can be dealt with perfectly well as a section of the Atheism article and something like "Atheism and Christmas" isn't worth bothering about. So atheists give presents and decorate Christmas trees? Yes, they do. So what? If someone writes that article it will achieve precisely nothing except to give atheists a good laugh. They celebrate Christmas because they enjoy the celebration; they don't care what it really means and they don't care what you say about them celebrating it. Accuse them of hypocrisy for celebrating it? They're going to say "We enjoy it and we don't care what it's supposed to be about." Is it worth creating yet ANOTHER ad hominem piece attacking atheists when CP's article on oxygen is less than 250 words long?.

:::::I am not an atheist and I'd much appreciate it if you stopped insinuating that I am. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 13:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, are you going to create any new atheism and evolution related articles? If not, why not? You do say you are very concerned about atheism and evolutionism, but you are not creating any new articles on these subjects. Why is that the case? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I've already told you that I'm not going to create any new articles on atheism and evolution and I've explained why: because I think they're a BAD IDEA. What's the point of an article about Atheism and Christmas? Do you think Richard Dawkins is going to suddenly decide "Oh, I like Christmas cake! I better accept Jesus immediately!"?? The way to counter atheism and evolution is to put good, unbiased information into CP, not create infantile articles claiming that atheism is the work of Satan because PZ Myers could do with eating less. What CP needs is massive amounts of high-quality information of the sort that will make people want to come here, rather than to Wikipedia, when they need to find something out. It already has more than enough childish ad hominems and I'm certainly not going to add any more. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:20, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Well said! --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Gay disease

2011-09-18T06:43:03Z

RudrickBoucher:

Where in the reference does it say '''anything''' about people being unsure as to homosexuals standing in terms of the AIDS epidemic? Fantomas 09:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
"Through media attention to AIDS and homosexual groups which have taken a stand both for their rights and against AIDS, homosexual practices and lifestyles have become more accepted. '''Many people, however, remain unsure whether to blame gays for AIDS or to view them as unfortunate victims in a public health nightmare.''' Media coverage has also caused many homosexuals to question their personal and social acceptance, and ultimately grow scared about their future. The author notes the gulf between religious and moral conservatives who condemn gay sex and homosexuality on the one hand, and Bacchanalian proponents who defend their freedom to have consensual sex with anyone and as often as they please."
</blockquote>
You may not agree with it, but it is there.
--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 09:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

oops, sorry, i read it twice, i thought - i retract my question. and yes, i don't agree with it. Fantomas 10:31, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Is this for real? ==
I don't recall HIV/Aids ever being referred to as "Gay disease". It was initially termed GRID, for "Gay-related immune deficiency". [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:43, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== proposed merging with [[AIDS]] ==

Should be merged because the article says it's just another word for it. A section in the AIDS article could replace this one.

:No, the concept of a "[[gay disease]]" is more general. It refers to any disease which is spread by homosexual behavior, especially the sexual behavior of homosexual men (i.e., "gays"). I don't know why people who like homosexuality are always stressing that both men and women are homosexual (with the phrase "gays and lesbians"), but I guess they don't want to be ignored.

:Having your own group of diseases is a great way to get attention (and federal research funds), although the cost in suffering and death may be a bit high for folks like me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:43, 15 June 2009 (EDT)

== "Organizations promoting homosexuality wanted to get the public to believe that AIDS was not just a threat to promiscuous homosexual men" ==

I think I will reword or remove this. There are millions of heterosexuals in Africa and China suffering from HIV/AIDS. It's dishonest to imply gay rights groups practiced revisionism on this particular subject--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 13:03, 24 June 2011 (EDT)
:You're absolutely right about the present, but the snippet there is talking about the early days of the disease's spread in the West, where the vast majority of HIV cases at that time were either homosexual men or IV drug users. No doubt it could be re-worded to make that clearer, but it is an important historical point. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 13:11, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

==''Spreads'' vs ''has spread''==
Ed, actually I prefer "spreads", or even "tends to spread", rather than "has spread". Remember, we are not just describing existing diseases, but also future, yet undiscovered ones. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 14:04, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

==LOL, ROFL!!!==

"'''Lesbians were three to four times more likely...to have sex with ''men'' who were high-risk for HIV.'''" I'm no expert, but I think whoever wrote that needs to read up on what "lesbian" means. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:43, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-18T06:31:58Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student */

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student ==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the [[Origin of Life]]: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]], are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011
::::We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a [[Atheism|significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion]]? If so, which ones? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Words change in meaning. For example people still talk about "the exception which proves the rule," a saying which makes no sense whatsoever. The reason it makes no sense whatsoever is that now we use "prove" to mean "confirm," whereas when that saying was coined it meant to TEST. I don't care what Cicero or the ancient Greeks took atheism to mean any more than I care what some 50 year old encyclopaedias take it to mean or than I care that "distaff" now means female descent but used to be a spinning implement. The fact is that atheism now means a lack of belief in gods, and that's the ground we have to fight on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history HERE] and [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html HERE] and [http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA1/genesisrecord.asp HERE]. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read [http://books.google.com/books?id=OXoefj6r-_0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=chance+cover+for+ignorance+quote+sproule&source=bl&ots=GtwbYTbfLt&sig=BbLC1HwH1ohYinXnauDLyCUpMOU&hl=en&ei=SRNzTuPAErDH0AGX-ZS1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false this]. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
:::::Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
:::::Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
:::::I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852327/?tool=pmcentrez here] and [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that [[abiogenesis]] was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!".[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] In short, it is part of the evolutionary paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a paradigm as "a '''philosophical''' and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why the origin of life is called "chemical evolution" by evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the "General Theory of Evolution" is the one developed by Darwin in the 1840s and it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis DECADES ago. Why argue against a theory that evolutionists abandoned in the 1930s? Tell them it doesn't answer the 15 questions and they're just going to shrug and say "Yeah, we know. So what?" As for chemical evolution, abiogenesis is only ONE way in which the term is used; it's also used to describe the cascade of elements formed by fusion inside stars, and quite clearly THAT isn't part of evolutionary theory either. By using non-standard definitions of what evolutionary theory is you're just opening yourself up to accusations of making strawman arguments. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution and we shouldn't be claiming that it is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:52, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution". Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, given your propensity to not adequately respond to posts directed towards you, I cannot say I read your post with any degree of due diligence and I merely browsed it. Secondly, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You might consider reading the post above which I just posted. By the way, given your propensity to not adequately respond to the post directed towards you and being very similar to a brick wall, I may move from merely browsing your posts to not reading them at all. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::My "obsession," as you put it, with these two articles comes from my concern at the spread of atheism and evolutionism and my desire to do something about it. Something that might actually WORK, that is, rather than asking ridiculous questions about "living fossils" that evolutionists are only unable to answer because they're laughing so hard. As for brick walls, would they resemble the ones erected around any article you've decided you own on here?

::::::::Feel free to stop reading my posts any time you like; that's your right.--[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-18T06:29:03Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student */

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student ==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the [[Origin of Life]]: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]], are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011
::::We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a [[Atheism|significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion]]? If so, which ones? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Words change in meaning. For example people still talk about "the exception which proves the rule," a saying which makes no sense whatsoever. The reason it makes no sense whatsoever is that now we use "prove" to mean "confirm," whereas when that saying was coined it meant to TEST. I don't care what Cicero or the ancient Greeks took atheism to mean any more than I care what some 50 year old encyclopaedias take it to mean or than I care that "distaff" now means female descent but used to be a spinning implement. The fact is that atheism now means a lack of belief in gods, and that's the ground we have to fight on. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

::Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history HERE] and [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html HERE] and [http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA1/genesisrecord.asp HERE]. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read [http://books.google.com/books?id=OXoefj6r-_0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=chance+cover+for+ignorance+quote+sproule&source=bl&ots=GtwbYTbfLt&sig=BbLC1HwH1ohYinXnauDLyCUpMOU&hl=en&ei=SRNzTuPAErDH0AGX-ZS1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false this]. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask ''any'' evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, ''Latimeria chalumnae''? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which '''within the framework of the theory you are discussing''' is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
:::::Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
:::::Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
:::::I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852327/?tool=pmcentrez here] and [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966842X04000174 here]. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that [[abiogenesis]] was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!".[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] In short, it is part of the evolutionary paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a paradigm as "a '''philosophical''' and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why the origin of life is called "chemical evolution" by evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the "General Theory of Evolution" is the one developed by Darwin in the 1840s and it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis DECADES ago. Why argue against a theory that evolutionists abandoned in the 1930s? Tell them it doesn't answer the 15 questions and they're just going to shrug and say "Yeah, we know. So what?" As for chemical evolution, abiogenesis is only ONE way in which the term is used; it's also used to describe the cascade of elements formed by fusion inside stars, and quite clearly THAT isn't part of evolutionary theory either. By using non-standard definitions of what evolutionary theory is you're just opening yourself up to accusations of making strawman arguments. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution and we shouldn't be claiming that it is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:52, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Two word for you: "chemical evolution". Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Sam, given your propensity to not adequately respond to posts directed towards you, I cannot say I read your post with any degree of due diligence and I merely browsed it. Secondly, anyone who reads the [[atheism]] and [[evolution]] articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You might consider reading the post above which I just posted. By the way, given your propensity to not adequately respond to the post directed towards you and being very similar to a brick wall, I may move from merely browsing your posts to not reading them at all. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::My "obsession," as you put it, with these two articles comes from my concern at the spread of atheism and evolutionism and my desire to do something about it. Something that might actually WORK, that is, rather than asking ridiculous questions about "living fossils" that evolutionists are only unable to answer because they're laughing so hard. As for brick walls, would they resemble the ones erected around any article you've decided you own on here?

::::::::Feel free to stop reading my posts any time you like; that's your right.--[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 19:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-17T02:57:05Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student */

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]

== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

==Punctuation of the article title==

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

== Something is Fishy ==

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. [[User:FRodgers|FRodgers]] 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a [[Creationary Scientific breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a [[Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs]] article. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
==A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student ==

1. '''How did life originate?'''

:Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
:Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
:This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. '''How did the DNA code originate?'''

:The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
:In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
:As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
:Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. '''How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?'''

:They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. '''Why is natural selection taught as evolution?'''

:It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
:Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. '''How did biochemical pathways originate?'''

:In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. '''Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?'''

:Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. '''How did multicellular life originate?'''

:Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. '''How did sex originate?'''

:Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
:As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. '''Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?'''

:They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. '''How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?'''

:They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. '''How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?'''

:It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
:Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
:We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
:As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
:A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. '''Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?'''

:It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
:Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
:Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. '''Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?'''

:Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been ''selectively'' breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!

14. '''Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?'''

:Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must ''observe'' the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
:The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. '''Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?'''

:Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the [[Origin of Life]]: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]], are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011
::::We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
:::SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a [[Atheism|significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion]]? If so, which ones? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::::"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

::Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, [[Global Christianity|there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians]] and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the [[Richard Dawkins|coward Richard Dawkins]] are going to change that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/140-the-tower-of-babel-legend-or-history HERE] and [http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html HERE] and [http://www.ucg.ca/booklets/BA1/genesisrecord.asp HERE]. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read [http://books.google.com/books?id=OXoefj6r-_0C&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=chance+cover+for+ignorance+quote+sproule&source=bl&ots=GtwbYTbfLt&sig=BbLC1HwH1ohYinXnauDLyCUpMOU&hl=en&ei=SRNzTuPAErDH0AGX-ZS1DQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false this]. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

== [[Origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm ==

"No one claimed that [[abiogenesis]] was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[http://creation.com/15-questions-responses-1#OOL] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

HPV vaccine

2011-09-14T22:37:12Z

RudrickBoucher:

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Only about 3% of women have active infections at any given time with one or more of these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA">This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007. "HPV vaccine types 6 and 11 (low-risk types) and 16 and 18 (high-risk types) were detected in 3.4% of female participants ...."[http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/813]</ref> The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

In spite of this, post-licensure surveillance studies have established that the safety record of the HPV vaccine is on par with that of most childhood vaccinations. The reported rate of adverse effects was 0.05% (about 5 in 10,000). The most commonly reported adverse effects were fainting and rash.<ref>http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/750.full</ref> The majority of patients exhibiting hypersensitivity to the first dose tolerated the subsequent doses with no reported symptoms.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769055/?tool=pmcentrez</ref>

In a remarkable move, a researcher for the HPV vaccine declared, "Public Should Receive More Complete Warnings":<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml</ref>

:Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. ... It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved. Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine’s risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]], or [[autism]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.<ref name="JAMA" />

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

An effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=40432</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]
*[http://truthaboutgardasil.org/ The Truth about Gardasil website]
*[http://healthwyze.org/index.php/the-lead-vaccine-developer-comes-clean-so-she-can-qsleep-at-nightq-gardasil-and-cervarix-dont-work-are-dangerous-and-werent-tested.html Lead researcher Dr. Diane Harper publicly claims that Gardasil and Cervarix don't work]
*[http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil Judicial Watch Investigates Side-Effects of HPV Vaccine]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2z6RK2uTWc Gardasil - The Damage is Done: From A Best Friend's View, YouTube video]
*[http://www.nvic.org/ National Vaccine Information Center]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-09-14T22:20:57Z

RudrickBoucher: /* A Purported Biologist's Response to the "15 Questions" */

HPV

2011-09-14T21:38:13Z

RudrickBoucher: re-worded a sentence for clarity

'''HPV''' is short for the "human papillomavirus", which is a family of viruses that infect epithelial tissues such as the skin and mucosa. There are over 200 known strains of the virus, roughly 40 of which are known to be sexually transmitted. The sexually transmitted strains of the virus fall into two broad categories, "high risk" strains and "low risk" strains. Most infections, with any strain, are asymptomatic but infected persons may still be contagious until the infection clears--usually around two years post-infection.

Symptomatic infection with "low risk" sexually transmitted strains usually manifests as condylomata acuminata (genital warts), most commonly found on the vulva or the anus. Warts can also occur inside the vagina or (very rarely) inside the uterus in women. Men commonly develop warts within the urethra, however such cases are unlikely to be discovered unless the warts lead to sexual dysfunction or painful urination.

Chronic infection with "high risk" strains may lead to the development of cervical, anal, or penile cancer. Because these cancers take many years to develop (and can have many other causes), regular screening for cervical cancer is advisable even for women who consider themselves to be within a low risk population.

HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease. Population studies testing for the presence of antibodies against viral proteins suggest that around 75% of American women will be infected with at least one sexually transmitted strain of the virus at some point in their lives. These numbers are surprisingly consistent across all demographics examined.

[[Merck]] has developed a [[vaccine]] against the four most prevalent sexually transmitted strains of HPV; see [[Gardasil]]. [[GlaxoSmithKline]] later released its own vaccine, Cervarix, which protects against the two most prevalent high risk strains. Both vaccines are manufactured using recombinant viral capsid proteins.

==References==
<references/>

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587113/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925431/?tool=pmcentrez

[[category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Cancer]]

HPV

2011-09-14T21:35:30Z

RudrickBoucher: Added sentence about cervarix

'''HPV''' is short for the "human papillomavirus", which is a family of viruses that infect epithelial tissues such as the skin and mucosa. There are over 200 known strains of the virus, roughly 40 of which are known to be sexually transmitted. The sexually transmitted strains of the virus fall into two broad categories, "high risk" strains and "low risk" strains. Most infections, with any strain, are asymptomatic but infected persons may still be contagious until the infection clears--usually around two years post-infection.

Symptomatic infection with "low risk" sexually transmitted strains usually manifests as condylomata acuminata (genital warts), most commonly found on the vulva or the anus. Warts can also occur inside the vagina or (very rarely) inside the uterus in women. Men commonly develop warts within the urethra, however such cases are unlikely to be discovered unless the warts lead to sexual dysfunction or painful urination.

Chronic infection with "high risk" strains may lead to the development of cervical, anal, or penile cancer. Because these cancers take many years to develop (and can have many other causes), regular screening is advisable even for women who consider themselves to be within a low risk population.

HPV is the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease. Population studies testing for the presence of antibodies against viral proteins suggest that around 75% of American women will be infected with at least one sexually transmitted strain of the virus at some point in their lives. These numbers are surprisingly consistent across all demographics examined.

[[Merck]] has developed a [[vaccine]] against the four most prevalent sexually transmitted strains of HPV; see [[Gardasil]]. [[GlaxoSmithKline]] later released its own vaccine, Cervarix, which protects against the two most prevalent high risk strains. Both vaccines are manufactured using recombinant viral capsid proteins.

==References==
<references/>

http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2587113/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925431/?tool=pmcentrez

[[category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Cancer]]

HPV vaccine

2011-09-14T01:14:16Z

RudrickBoucher: /* Side Effects and Adverse Reactions */ --Vaccines do not cause autism. The science is pretty clear on this.

The '''HPV vaccine''' exists as 2 products, Gardasil (marketed by [[Merck]] and protecting against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the [[HPV|human papillomavirus]]) and Cervarix (marketed by [[GlaxoSmithKline]] and protecting against types 16 and 18 only).

Genital warts are most commonly associated with HPV–6 and HPV–11. HPV types 16 and 18 together are found in about 70 percent of cervical cancers. <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

FDA-mandated post-licensure safety studies have found that the vaccine has a safety record comparable to that of most childhood vaccines. The reported rate of adverse effects was 0.05%, the most commonly reported adverse effects were fainting and rash. Patients exhibiting hypersensitivity to the first dose generally tolerated the subsequent doses. <ref>[http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/302/7/750.full]</ref>

The vaccine is very expensive and has been associated with severe adverse reactions, including paralysis.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/3758983/Schoolgirl-12-paralysed-after-receiving-cervical-cancer-jab.html 12-year-old paralyzed]</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., [[chlamydia]], [[herpes]], [[hepatitis]], [[trichomoniasis]], [[gonorrhea]], [[syphilis]], [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

"Gardasil had three times the number of Emergency Room visits [than associated with the meningitis vaccine] - more than 5,000. Reports of side effects were up to 30 times higher with Gardasil."<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/06/eveningnews/main4781658.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4781658</ref>

In a remarkable move, a researcher for the HPV vaccine declared, "Public Should Receive More Complete Warnings":<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/19/cbsnews_investigates/main5253431.shtml</ref>

:Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. ... It’s highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved. Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine’s risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.

==Side Effects and Adverse Reactions==
As of May 1, 2009, there have been 13,758 adverse reactions occurring after administration of the HPV vaccine, including 39 deaths, reported to the CDC since the FDA approval on June 8 2006.<ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref> Of the the 39 deaths, 26 were confirmed; the CDC claims that none of these were caused by the vaccine. <ref>CDC: Reports of Adverse Events Following Gardasil® Vaccination [http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm]</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have passed out from the pain.<ref>MSNBC: Some girls fainting after receiving HPV vaccine Gardasil gaining reputation as most painful of childhood shots, experts say [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/]</ref>

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as [[infertility]], [[cancer]].

==Effectiveness==
The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

An effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. The National Cancer Institute notes that "The surest way to eliminate risk for genital HPV infection is to refrain from any genital contact with another individual." <ref>National Cancer Institute: Human Papillomaviruses and Cancer: Questions and Answers [http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV]</ref>

Routine pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect cervical cancer early so that it can be treated.<ref>MayoClinic.com: Pap smear: Screening test for cervical cancer: Understand the importance of the Pap smear, including how it's done, what it means when it's abnormal and why it needs to be part of your regular health checkups. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/pap-smear/HQ01177]</ref>

==Mandatory Vaccination==
The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s [[Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices]], said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

Merck has succeeded in having its HPV Vaccine added to the "list of required vaccinations for immigrants applying to become citizens," thereby forcing immigrants to pay for and receive this vaccine.<ref>http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/immigrant-gardasil/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaers/gardasil.htm CDC Warning]
*[http://truthaboutgardasil.org/ The Truth about Gardasil website]
*[http://healthwyze.org/index.php/the-lead-vaccine-developer-comes-clean-so-she-can-qsleep-at-nightq-gardasil-and-cervarix-dont-work-are-dangerous-and-werent-tested.html Lead researcher Dr. Diane Harper publicly claims that Gardasil and Cervarix don't work]
*[http://www.judicialwatch.org/gardasil Judicial Watch Investigates Side-Effects of HPV Vaccine]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2z6RK2uTWc Gardasil - The Damage is Done: From A Best Friend's View, YouTube video]
*[http://www.nvic.org/ National Vaccine Information Center]

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]