Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T15:33:51Z

Simple: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T15:04:35Z

Simple: /* Comments */

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T15:03:00Z

Simple: /* Comments */

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T15:01:43Z

Simple: /* Comments */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that such a situation would be a desirable side effect, to say the least. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T14:55:46Z

Simple: /* Comments */

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-06T14:35:31Z

Simple: /* Comments */

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-07-03T19:06:03Z

Simple:

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2007-07-03T19:05:02Z

Simple:

Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

2007-07-03T17:36:51Z

Simple:

{{debate}}

Science is better, because it gave us the Internet, etc.

Religion is better, because it gave us values (and [[Salvation]]), etc.

:I would go so far as to say that neither one of these two is "better" than the other. While these two things certainly collide on a number of issues, they are largely unrelated concepts.
:Religion exists (this is my perspective, not cited fact!!) to impart value, morality, meaning, guidance, direction, etc. to the lives of its followers. '''Edit:''' for many people, Religion is the only thing standing between themselves and debilitating feelings of dispair, uncertainty, uselessness, or the one thing that offers them the mental fortitute to resist vice, addiction, or crime. As such, its importance must certainly not be understated.
:Science, in it's most common definition, is not associated with such things. Rather, science's purpose is to help us as humans to learn more about the world in which we live, and benefit from that improved understanding by using it to improve the quality of our lives. (whether or not science and progress actually make our lives happier is another debate topic altogether) - [[User:Simple|Simple]] 13:27 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

Debate:Which is better: science or religion?

2007-07-03T17:27:34Z

Simple:

{{debate}}

Science is better, because it gave us the Internet, etc.

Religion is better, because it gave us values (and [[Salvation]]), etc.

:I would go so far as to say that neither one of these two is "better" than the other. While these two things certainly collide on a number of issues, they are largely unrelated concepts.
:Religion exists (this is my perspective, not cited fact!!) to impart value, morality, meaning, guidance, direction, etc. to the lives of its followers.
:Science, in it's most common definition, is not associated with such things. Rather, science's purpose is to help us as humans to learn more about the world in which we live, and benefit from that improved understanding by using it to improve the quality of our lives. (whether or not science and progress actually make our lives happier is another debate topic altogether) - [[User:Simple|Simple]] 13:27 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

Soil

2007-07-03T17:21:16Z

Simple: New page: '''Soil''' is typically used to refer fertile dirt or earth. It is often composed of decaying plant and/or animal matter, particles of various minerals or rocks, and some amount of water ...

'''Soil''' is typically used to refer fertile dirt or earth. It is often composed of decaying plant and/or animal matter, particles of various minerals or rocks, and some amount of water in the form of moisture.

Business

2007-07-03T17:17:14Z

Simple: New page: ==Economics== '''Business''' is a term with a multitude of economic meanings, varying distinctly in scope. As a broad field, Business can be used to refer to a field of social science...

==Economics==
'''Business''' is a term with a multitude of economic meanings, varying distinctly in scope. As a broad field, Business can be used to refer to a field of [[social science]] aimed at achieving particular economic goals, typically [[profit]].

Less generally, business can be used to refer to a specific [[industry]] or [[market sector]] in an [[economy]]. Examples include the "fast food business" and the "automobile business".

Business can be used as a [[synonym]] for a specific business entity, a.k.a. [[corporation]], [[company]], etc.

==Personal Affairs==
'''Business''' is often used as a term referring to personal responsibilities or concerns of a specific individual or collective entity.

Temple

2007-07-03T17:04:15Z

Simple: New page: ''This page might serve better as a disambiguation page. Expect changes in the future!'' ==Religion== A '''Temple''' is a place of worship, or something in which a God or Gods are th...

''This page might serve better as a disambiguation page. Expect changes in the future!''

==Religion==
A '''Temple''' is a place of [[worship]], or something in which a God or Gods are thought to dwell. Often a structure dedicated to one or more deities, temples are frequently thought to be impressive and/or imposing constructions. However, some religions (most notably [[Christianity]]) believe that the human body itself is a place where God resides, and thusly can be seen as a temple of worship.[[citation requested]]

==American Universities==
'''Temple University''' is an American [[University]] in Pennsylvania. Known especially well for excellent programs in the fields of [[Law]], [[Education]] and [[Business]], and for their multiple collegiate sports programs.

[http://www.temple.edu/]

==Anatomy==

The '''temple''' is a term used to refer to an area on the side of the head, behind the eyes.

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-07-03T13:59:39Z

Simple:

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Celsius ==

How come the article states the degrees for temperature in Celsius? Shouldn't we be using Fahrenheit which what Americans use? If we are supposed to use American spellings for words shouldn't we also use the American system for measurements? --[[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 17:28, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:I would prefer to use Fahrenheit. The near-surface temperature has increased one degree Fahrenheit since the lowest point of the [[Little Ice Age]] in 1850. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would prefer Kelvin. --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Maybe because Celsius degrees are bigger, so the changes seem smaller? Anyway, I agree that deg. F should be used, as they what are used by people in the US (except scientists...). [[User:Human|Human]] 18:46, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh man, I am so embarrassed, I just saw what my edit summary "looks like". I can't go back and remove it now, either. Sorry about that. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Suggestion, since this is a science topic, failure to use Celsius or Kelvin is an issue. On the other hand, many Americans (who I presume are the primary readers) have so little understanding that they won't be helped much by degrees in Celsius. Why not give both? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:50, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's flippin' brilliant! Would you mind doing it? My 9/5erizer is broken today and the parts won't be in 'til Tuesday. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I'll do it later. I need ot get dinner now. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:31, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political bias==

The essay by the science history teacher who supports the Kyoto Protocol contains no information about the percentage of climatologists who support or reject AGW. And ''Science'' might be a popular journal, but it's notorious for rejecting valid science on specious grounds that it's "not of interest to their readers". I guess this means their readers only want to hear things which fit their preconceived notions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:20, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

: Um, what? Science isn't a "popular journal" but is one of the two most highly thought of journal (the other being Nature). They reject the vast majority of material they get and only accept the highest quality material that is relevant to a broad range of audience. The only people to whom Science is notorious are the people who can't accept science. And while were at it, whether or not a percentage study exists isn't that relevant when the consensus measured in other fashions (such as the fraction of major scientific organizations which agree with it) is clear. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

No? ''This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.'' --[[User:Java|Java]] 18:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:Where does it show this? Please quote one peer-reviewed article in which the author says "I agree with the IPCC about (anything)." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
I posted a reference to one (Jones, P. D., M. New, D. E. Parker, S. Martin, and I. G. Rigor (1999), Surface air temperature and its changes over the past 150 years, Rev. Geophys., 37(2), 173–200.), but you deleted it. Why did you do that? I'm trying to make this page accurate with the science, and people keep putting politics into it. This is a science topic.
:And a recent examples:
Good SA, Corlett GK, Remedios JJ, Noyes EJ, Llewellyn-Jones DT (2007) The Global Trend in Sea Surface Temperature from 20 Years of Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer Data. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 7 pp. 1255–1264 [[User:Ifixthings|Ifixthings]] 18:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Hegerl GC, Crowley TJ, Allen M, Hyde WT, Pollack HN, et al. (2007) Detection of Human Influence on a New, Validated 1500-Year Temperature Reconstruction. Journal of Climate: Vol. 20, No. 4 pp. 650–666

== Independent scientists such as ... [[Fred Singer]] ==

Fred Singer and organizations for which he has worked for appear to have received grants and funding from the oil companies.[http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1] Is there evidence to the contrary of this? Is it appropriate to categorize Fred Singer as an independent scientist with these associations? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:That's what the courts say, and Liberals usually abide by court decisions. The last guy who tried to slander Singer lost his shirt. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: My question is not one of slander but rather if the word 'independent' is being used to describe one scientist in an effort to lend support to his views, and not to others who are equally independent who hold contrasting views. In that case, the word is being used in an inconsistent and biased way. Why is one scientist independent when another is not? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, well by "independent" I just meant "speaking for himself", "not constrained by his employer to toe the organizational line". Like Lindzen at MIT, having tenure, can say what he wants. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Like [[James Hansen]] - the NASA scientist who was told not to talk about global warming?[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml][http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6341451/][http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1555183]
:::Then how come he can talk about how he was told not to talk about global warming?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:22, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

:::False citation: #11 doesn't say he was told not to talk about global warming, it just says that official press releases would be scrutinized. #12 doesn't mention his ability to talk at all; in it Hansen accuses Bush of stifling evidence (but without giving any examples of this supposed stifling). #13 says "Hansen says threats from NASA officials came only by phone, with nothing in writing" but doesn't give the wording of this supposed "threat" or even a summary of it.

:::This is typical of liberals: they make claims which have no evidence. The entire case on global warming consists of claims that "the world's top scientists agree" but they give no polls to support this "consensus" claim. They say that "models predict" but when the models are contradicted by observations they say that "models aren't predictions". They say it's carbon dioxide, but CO2 levels have been much higher in the past when there was cooling, and anyway the climate record of the last 400 million years show an 800 year lag between temperature change and CO2 change - CO2 '''follows''' temperature, rather than driving it.

:::They are politicizing science while running a well orchestrated PR campaign of calling the kettle black. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:41, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:29, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Climatology is not a well established science and some staunch conservatives are environmentalists so...... ==

Climatology is not a well established science that can even predict what the weather is going to be like in two years or even 3 weeks from now. With that in mind, could we please hear both sides of the argument and leave it at that. I realize that environmentalists have made bad predictions in the past. [http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/basic_information/what_happened_predictions.html][http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/misuse/failpred.html] On the other hand, corporate America has certainly had their shares of environmental abuses (Love Canal, etc).

Lastly, I would point out that many conservative evangelical Christians are environmentalists. [http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/article_ideasinaction.asp?pr=2178] Dr. Francis Schaeffer for example, cited the importance of taking care of the environment.

Therefore, considering that climatology is not a well established science and considering the fact that staunch conservatives are sometimes environmentalists, could we just give both sides and be done with it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Gen. 1:28 pretty much says it all, as far as the environment goes.
:*And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
:Sounds like it's ours to use or lose, so I reckon we best take good care of it. Getting all the scientific facts ought to help us do that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== removed uncited statement. can anyone give a citation? ==

I removed this uncited statement:

"However, the UN offers no proof of a scientific consensus on the subject, and all polls of scientists show anywhere from 25% to 75% disagreement with the UN position."

Can anyone give a citation? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:I can't prove that the UN offers no proof; I just never saw any proof from them. So the "no proof" claim should be taken out.

:But I put in a survey which said climatologists are evenly split. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:35, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

: If I read my current events right, some of the disagreement with the UN position was that it was not strongly worded enough. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:48, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Strong criticism against one of the sources ==

One of the citations: [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181] claims that there is an study that shows scientist to be evenly split on the issue of climate warming. This "study" has been very strongly criticized and it's submission to Science on December 22, 2004 was rejected. Reasons being that it was done on internet, anonymously with no way of knowing who had answered to it. It was password protected in an attempt to limit the people answering but the password was posted to an climate skeptics mailing list [http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/]. Ill remove this entry from our pages from two reasons. 1. the citation is very unreliable 2. the text on CP is straight copy from the article it citates. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Seams i should have made the headline to say: against two of the sources. The article now claims: One scientist, Michael Mann, was investigated by the U.S. Senate for a scientific fraud uncovered by two persistent statistics experts (see Hockey stick graph). This really makes me wonder if the author has even read his own sources, Mr Mann was never investigated by the Senate or even accused of anything, thats an outright lie and the source never even claims this, so thats all made up by the author here. He was there just to testify on the matter of climate change. Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas challenged Mr. Mann's claims but for some reason there is no answer from Mr.Mann in the article. His response can be found here: [http://www.princeton.edu/~step/people/FORUM.pdf] Where he refutes the accusations made against the study. Im going to remove the clear lies from the article and add Mr. Manns response to the criticism. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:45, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Image ==

I took out the graph; we can do better. It is not labelled on either axis, and does not tell us what it is measuring. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Effects of global warming==

Cut from end of article:

:Part of the political motivation for acting on Global Warming may be the fact that there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

This paragraph does not distinguish between "global warming", i.e., a rise in temperature and "the Global Warming theory", i.e., the idea that catastrophic warming will take place.

Also undefined is "the effects of Global Warming". What are those supposed to be? Rising sea levels? (These are unrelated to the recent rise, as even the UN assessment admits.) More frequent and severe hurricanes? (Not observed so far.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:13, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:The poll itself didn’t appear to make that distinction. Politicians, like it or not, act on the basis of the poll numbers (even when polls don’t make distinctions). Find better numbers if you can, I couldn’t, but the fact remains that (however those taking the poll understood “effects”) the American public belies the “effects” will be seen, this large public interest in Global Warming is part of why politicians are talking about it (If the public thought it wasn’t going to happen most politicians wouldn’t care about it). This is why the poll was placed in the politics section rather than in some other, more scientific section.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
::Since, I think the paragraph has been well explained and I’m seeing no response to my explanation; I take it there is a consensus that this belongs where it was. I’ll return it if I see no objection in the next day(ish). --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:38, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Seeing no objections I’m restoring the paragraph to the article.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:41, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism Edit==
I am sorry Learn together, I did not mean to take out your edit.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's ok, no problem. I was just surprised when I looked and right after my edit it said 'removed vandalism'. ;-) I didn't catch it myself until I saw your change. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:56, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

== Ice ages and hypocrisy ==

"The Earth has experienced numerous ice ages over the past two million years" - not according to this wiki's article on [[Ice Age]]. You can't have it both ways, did they occur, and is the earth at least 2,000,000 years old, or did they not and is it not? [[User:Human|Human]] 21:44, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

........--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:51, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationary scientists]] believe that there was a single Ice Age that lasted around 700 years following [[Great Flood|Noah's Flood]]. (REF: Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter16.pdf ''What about the Ice Age?''], ''The Creation Answers Book'', Chapter 16). I guess I was hoping for a clearer answer than "........", which I don't understand. [[User:Human|Human]] 16:46, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Cite Leading Group of Climate Change Skeptics? ==

As the IPCC is included in the introduction to this entry, it's appropriate that the leading group of climate change skeptics be cited, instead of individual scientists. Does anybody know what the appropriate body to cite is? I'm aware of "The Friends of Science", but I believe they're exclusively Canadian. [[User:Dbarefoot|Dbarefoot]] 08:29, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Qualifers on IPCC in Introduction ==

I posit that if we're going to lay out the groups on both side of the global warming debate, they ought to be qualified equally, or not at all. I don't think these qualifiers are appropriate in introductions--they belong in the particular entries about the individuals or groups.

As I've queried above, I think it makes sense to describe the leading group of climate change skeptics or doubters, as they seem a natural counterpoint to the IPCC. Citing individual scientists seems too anecdotal for an encyclopedia, which ought to seek to be conclusive.

== " removing liberalness" ==

Is now given as a reason to alter an article? Ironically, the rather few "non-liberal" qualifiers I have ever typed were all reverted. Maybe because a liberal is not allowed to say these things? Or perhaps, just because since I can't understand them, I can't push the POV appropriately? [[User:Human|Human]] 23:05, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
::Look at the statement i removed. i removed it because it was unsourced. perhaps i should have said "removing unsourced statement"[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Remember, liberal sources don't count! --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== How about these changes? ==

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the politicized science of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.[Citation Needed]

I was going to use -> http://heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16806 <- this as a citation before the page got locked :)

....and also I must take issue with this statement. "The scenario most postulated is dust storms.[4]"

Dust storms are not the "most" postulated -- The sun's solar cycles are just as much of a plausable theory....

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

:I have no problem with that change, and I'm the one who entered the original information. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:42, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Neptune ==

I just read today that global warming has been found to be occurring on Neptune. It matches the same pattern for the time period found upon Mars and earth. It may be safe to assume that is not due to human intervention. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

: Where did you see this? I'd be very interested in reading about this in more detail. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

::The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950. I hope this is enough information to 'dig' it up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Found it. The paper is interesting. The correlation found was positive but not statistically significant between the brightness of Neptune and the Earth's temperature. Furthermore, from my reading it looks like one might expect a significant correlation even if most of the recent warming on earth is anthropogenic (note that this isn't my area of expertise so that could be painfully wrong). It should be interesting to see where this goes. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 10:56, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: I take no personal position on the issue, but I do believe any information that could be meaningful to form a complete picture should be included. That Mars and Neptune are both heating up over the same time period as the earth, and in the case of Mars even the temperature amount is similar, is certainly notable. It seems to me there is too much of an effort to dismiss information that would appear to be at odds with the concept that global warming is caused by humans, and that is unfortunate. (Note: I don't count global warming on Pluto due to Pluto's strange orbit. It has too many oddities, from my point of view, to be put in the same category.) Peace to you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

*Learn, you posted on my talk page, and I replied. Let me know. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I changed the header title before posting here, I hope I didn't step on any toes. The Header ''was'' '''Global Warming on other Planets''' Which I changed to '''Warming ''of'' other Planets'''. I did this to prevent confusion, though indeed the other planets are ''also'' globes but usually, (in my experience) "global" means the sum and totality of Earth. Feel free to change it back if'n you want. - [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 14:36, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the talk message, and no offense taken. I've found that articles that discuss other planets usually still use the term global warming. For instance it has been popular to talk about global warming on Venus over the last decade or so, and the term global warming is used. The source about global warming on Mars also used the words global warming and Mars in the title. For these reasons I felt it was appropriate to keep the header title with global warming. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Secular scientists 'believe'==

This is surely an error. This should read 'secular scientists have [[experiment]]al evidence that indicates'. Nobody gets peer-reviewed work published on the basis of 'belief'.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Is it an error? No. It is correct as it is. "Belief" means to give assent to an idea. It does not mean, despite the way some atheistic types think of it, as accepting an idea without evidence or good reason.
:Is it the best way to word it? Maybe not, but I'm not happy with your suggestion either. If I remember, I'll have more of a think about it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::How about "Secular scientists think"? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::To my mind, "believe" is the better word. "Think" to me indicates some doubt, whereas "believe" can be a very strong conviction. But not everybody sees it that way, so I'll agree to changing it to "think", and in fact I've just done that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

*This article has taken on drastic changes, it is a diluted, semi-neutral piece. It needs to be overhauled without the Liberal bias, and the removed material from warming skeptics added back. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
What is wrong with semi-neutral??? Is it only good if it carries a right wing arch-conservative bent?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 09:18, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Britnme, it is not true that getting peer-reviewed work published is a guarantee that it is based on experimental evidence. It only means that no obvious errors were found, and that the editor thinks it will interest his readers.

:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==AGW==

Cut from article:

:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].

What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scientists who believe in global warming ==

Hi Dan, I'd like to point out that it is possible for Creation Scientists to believe in global warming as well, but they would not attach a 2 million year period of ice ages. ICR, for instance, takes a neutral view on global warming believing so far that the case has not been made satisfactorily, but they are open to ongoing evidence that may steer their opinion one way or the other if more concrete information is found. But even if they did feel global warming has been shown to be caused by humans, they still would not believe the earth is 2 million years old. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:26, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, the age issue would apply only to Young Earth Creationists. I will freely admit that more creation scientists are global warming skeptics than other scientists, but I don't think we need to make the distinction here, especially because, as you said, groups like ICR take a neutral stance on it, so it's a separate issue. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::The edit was to a paragraph about ice ages, not about global warming itself. That's why it is appropriate to qualify it somehow. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:39, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Falsehood==

The article's defintion of global warming in the first line is merely that the temperature is going up slightly over time. Since nobody really disputes the slight increase, and that the dispute is more over whether it's natural or human caused, I think that it's hard to apply to term "liberal falsehood" to the topic as a whole. Maybe there would be an easier way to make the distinction. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with DanH. You can't deny that global warming is happening. The real question is whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by us. An article about global warming itself and not about a specific cause of it can hardly be ca;;ed a "liberal falsehood" can it?[[User:Nsmyth|Nsmyth]] 03:03, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
::I think another point of dispute is what global warming actually is. Is it a real problem of the planet getting inexorably warmer, or just the rising part of a regular (or irregular) warming/cooling cycle? It's not that long since the alarmists were telling us that we were headed for another ice age! The term "global warming" doesn't suggest the latter, so depending on just what the term means, I would suggest that some ''do'' dispute whether it (the former definition) is a real phenomenon at all. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Liberal bias, as it has just been changed to, sounds much better. Falsehood sounded like too big an elephant to chew. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Learn together! I am so use to people calling me an idiot or disagreeing with anything I do, I will save this post of yours! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:12, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hockey Stick ==

This seems like an inappropriate graph to me. The gray are the real values, but they've been averaged to get a blue line to smooth out large fluctuations. Highlighting the ups and downs of the gray would give a very different picture. Also, it only deals with the northern hemisphere, which makes the overall numbers incomplete for the 'global' part of global warming. (I realize the ice samples were only taken from the north pole, but we've got another pole that needs to be checked for balance if those figures are to be as meaningful as they are made to appear.) Just my thoughts [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:24, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

==AEI and Exxon-Mobil==

The linked citation reads: ''AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees. ExxonMobil gave AEI approximately $925,000 between 1998 and 2003.''

Jacques, why do you keep cutting out the part about the AEI trying to buy scientists? It's got a citation. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Clay mathematics institute also offer money rewards, do you think it's trying to buy scientists?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:05, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I won't have any idea until you put a link in there for a cite, so I can read it for myself. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:08, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::By your logic, the Nobel Prize Committee is also trying to buy scientists, since Nobel Prize comes with money reward. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:09, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::The Nobel Prize committee make their award on the basis of what someone has done (i.e. a reward) not on the basis of getting someone to prove or do something (i.e. a bribe). [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Let me guess--you own stock in Exxon? Such defensiveness ill-becomes someone with no money in this fight. --23:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And you own stock in solar power companies.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:15, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I have a cite with a very long list of opponents to the global warming theory who have been sponsored by Exxon-Mobil. This is relevant to support the statement that such large oil industry companies are leading opponents of the theory. The line about offering $10,000 can be omitted if it's felt to be irrelevant.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:17, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Please do--then at least I won't get banned for an 'edit war'. And Jacques, PLEASE post a list of scientists being bankrolled by the massive Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy, once you get it together. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::well, your thinking seems to be: tax money = good, donation = evil. Private donation automatically corrupt people and tax money does not, and any scientist who accept private donation is an Evil Communist.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::man what
::::::oooookay. Let me make sure I understand your 'logic' here. Basically, you're saying that all these scientists, both the goverment-funded and the Exxon-funded, are equally corrupt, and should be treated with exactly the same amount of credibility, the same way that 'researchers' for the [[Tobacco institute]] were treated when they were the only doctors on Earth who failed to find a connection between smoking and lung diseases. Am I understanding your 'reasoning' here, so far? --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:31, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::So you are saying that you would have believed it when Soviet Union government funded Scientists claimed they have 'disproved' Darwinian evolution?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:36, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Considering how many Darwinists they had to ship off to Siberia to do it? Maybe not. Anyway, working off of your apparent belief that the Government is funding Global Warming research for its own insidious ends, what's the Bush-controlled US government's incentive to _support_ the Global Warming Theory? (Especially seeing how George is an oilman himself.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Of course, Soviet government would never tell you that they ship dissenters overseas now would they. And despite what you may think, George Bush does not control the distribution of science funding.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::You don't know where [[Siberia]] is, do you. And what's the rest of the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy's reason for their immense hoax? --00:34, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::"equally corrupt", or "equally likely to be corrupt"? Surely nobody here is claiming that either side is corrupt, merely suggesting that they might be account where the money is coming from. From that point of view, I would say yes, each side is ''equally likely'' to be corrupt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:41, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I am quite happy with the current version, which is a simple statement of fact - thank you for the edit, Jaques, which I think improves it. Regarding tobacco/lung diseases mentioned, I wonder if on the article about [[Richard Lindzen]] it should be mentioned how much money he received from the tobacco industry to dispute the connection between tobacco and lung diseases. Not that I would suggest for one moment that the gentleman does not believe what he advocates. I'm sure he is quite sincere--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, I'll bet he's sincere. Nothing produces true sincerity like a regular paycheck. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:50, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18121730/site/newsweek/ Richard Lindzen has already responded to this sort of smearing tactics by enviornmentalists.] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::"If a man's paycheck depends on him not understanding something, you can pretty well depend on him not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair's Law.

:::::::The wording that Jaques keeps deleting was previously approved by sysop Phillip J Rayment. These deletions smack of vandalism are against the CP commandments. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 23:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Standard Wikipedia tactic. Come into channel, blame someone for rules violations, get him booted, take over, right? It worked for SlimVirgin over there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*I will be the decider of that sock, not you. I suggest you keep to productive edits, and off the talk pages. Unfortunately, Arjen was a sock of BrianCo, and actually even posted on the user page. Both gone now. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:13, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I am still not getting what's wrong with an oil company funding global warming research. Or what is significant about some of that research being different from the consensus. What do the critics think -- that ExxonMobil should ignore the issue? That all research should just endorse what has already been published? I made a change to drop some of the goofy conspiratorial innuendo. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:54, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::There's no innuendo about a statement of fact - this company gave this much money to these organizations over this period of time, and the organizations all had one thing in common. It's not a conspiracy - it's a perfectly straightforward transaction as far as I can see. There's no secret about it and the figures are public. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: The innuendo is that that oil companies only gave money to skeptics, that they funded bad science, and that there is something improper about them funding research. Your sources don't prove any of those things, and are just goofy left-wing conspiracy rants. Can you please explain the point of the statement on the Talk page? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::There is nothing improper at all about a company only funding researchers whose views are in their commercial interests and I don't think the statement says it's improper - it says E-M is opposed to this view and they fund people whose views agree with theirs but run counter to the mainstream. As I said, there's no conspiracy about it - conspiracy implies secrecy and this is no secret. Moreover, it could be argued that it's entirely proper for a company to defend its own commercial interests and that of its shareholders. I can't understand why there should be a problem about making their stance clear, as it's unarguable that this is their stance.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:02, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The problem with your claim is that it is just not true that ExxonMobil only funds research that runs counter to the mainstream. It has given $100M to Stanford Univ. for mainstream research. Your sources on this do suggest a kooky conspiracy theory, it is just not plausible and not reported in any reliable source. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you! It needs a because it is mostly inserted UN material. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

For the record, the fact that I copyedit something rather than remove it should not be taken as "approval" of it. It might just mean that I have no knowledge of its accuracy, or haven't bothered to research it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Philip, I didn't see anyone blaming you....the edits can all be seen. No worries. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:48, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
: No, no-one "blamed" me for anything, but Arjen cited me as approving the paragraph in question, simply because I edited it and didn't remove it, so I was just making clear that my editing should not imply approval. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:24, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Oh! Well it was his snippy remark that lead me to research him, and I found him to be a smelly old sock, Philip. So no need to bother with him anymore! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Re-write Time.... ==

Has anyone actually read this article? Not with an eye towards editing it, but from the POV of someone seeking information? I doubt it. It is overly technical and wordy, cumbersome, IMO. Sort of what one gets via committee, lol. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:05, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

:There's not much that can be done right now; it's locked. I agree, in looking at it, that it lacks flow. Even the opening paragraph has redundancies. I wonder why we keep the hockey stick graph if we know there are problems with it? -- even 'wiki' has less liberal graphs. I also wonder why we don't use fahrenheit instead of celsius. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Proposed direction ==

I'd like to find a good source that concisely lays out the IPCC case for attributing the warming to GHGs. I know that in the TAR, the evidence was chiefly the inability of the models to reproduce the temperature trend without GHGs. Since then AR4 has reduced the estimated contribution of solar activity even further. But I don't think I will find a good layout of the IPCC case in the summary for policy makers. I need to look at the working group I report again.

Of course the response will be to point out the poor quality of the models, as done on the Climate models page, and the rare and unusual level of current solar activity per Solanki, and how poorly solar activity is understood per Foucal (sp?).

There is also a possible significant and underappreciated role for aerosols, with the trend from solar dimming to solar brightening, in the late 80s and 90s.

I am not sure what the purpose of the "Natural variability of the climate system" section is, it doesn't go anywhere, and the information it describes is not particularly controversial. Even scientists who don't "believe in global warming" accept the ices ages.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 02:25, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:Creationary scientists don't believe in multiple [[ice age]]s, regardless of whether or not they believe in global warming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Wouldn't that be covered by a note or sentence in the body, Philip? I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines. Being that we have many who are YEC's, we need to strive more for inclusion, rather than exclusion, by at least noting where some Christians differ, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:28, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::Ah, but it is covered by the commandment that says every article must be true and accurate! :-)
::Seriously, as far as I'm aware, there is no YEC POV in this article. What there has been, however, are anti-YEC beliefs presented as true. For example, stating that there have been multiple ice ages over millions of years is an anti-YEC (and anti-biblical) POV. All I have done is qualify any matter-of-fact statements that assume an anti-YEC position so that they are not presented as undisputed truth.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:23, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I was mainly addressing the bringing up of the ice ages themselves, the section doesn't seem to be serving a relevant purpose. Separately, labeling everything purported to be older that 6000 years "evolutionary", seems a bit paranoid and fearful, as if the "believer" might be seduced by the evidence if not properly fortified with a warning. We are not serving the broader conservative community by projecting this appearance.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:51, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I've got no objection to removing any reference to YEC ideas, as long as old-Earth/evolutionary ideas are also removed. If there is no need for the section with the mention of ice ages, I'm happy for it to go.
::::Labelling everything older than 6000 years as "evolutionary" is an attempt to avoid it being written as though the old ages are correct. If there's a better way of doing that, I've no objection. But I don't want any part of the article to be written as though hundreds of thousands or millions of years is just accepted to be correct. That would be like me asking an evolutionist to accept it being written it as though the Earth was only 6000 years old. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*This is a place Andy needs to consider and post in. Personally, I agree with you, Africangenesis. But Andy is the man, so I will point him this way. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:31, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:The "Natural variability of the climate system" section has no purpose that I can see. There is a role for the glacial ice core data, that has been cited by both sides. Those pro-global warming cite the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature in the ice cores. The skeptics point out that the temperature rises PRECEDED the CO2 rises. It is pretty much a wash, so I'm not sure it needs to be mentioned. This section doesn't deal with either argument. The "evolutionary" label was used elsewhere in the article, not just in this section. I think it will detract from the perceived quality of our work. Frankly, it was so unusual to see in this context, that I didn't know what to make of it at first.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:00, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, I can understand. However if you or I subscribed to the Young Earth Creationist's POV, you would. So better we put this to the boss, eh? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:05, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

----

=== YEC POV Or Not? ===

TK said: "I don't feel comfortable making each and every article here from a YEC POV, as that idea isn't covered by our Commandments or Guidelines." This is very important point for CP and I'm happy to see that this question is rising to be topic in earnest discussions. It is fair and clear for users (both editors and readers) to say that this site is limited to YEC articles - or to leave other possibilites for views in articles if decided so. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 13:46, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:*Thanks. But the answer seems to have been given by PhilipR, just after my post, which you quote.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:53, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

::I want to discuss this topic not only to decide what is the contents of this article but how different views are handled in CP. Is this site for YEC? Does this site say directly it is? Or is this site going to be something else - wider views... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 14:14, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservapedia does not suppress the YEC view, but neither does it endorse the YEC view, nor the evolutionary view. So statements that are worded as though the evolutionary view is correct will be changed so as to read that it is the evolutionary view rather than fact, but the evolutionary view is still allowed. Is that clear enough? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Direction of research efforts==

Cut from intro:

:The focus of the science surrounding global warming has been to determine whether it is the result the natural internal variability of the climate, or due to other influences such as solar or human activity.

Is it determining ''whether'' or trying to prove ''that'' the recent warming trend is man-made? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:It is supposed to be the former, but has become a religion so certain that its issue is urgent and that its thesis will ultimately prevail, that some of the WG1 authors are willing to suppress contrary evidence perhaps seeing it as a mere blip in the road and to exploit general ignorance of the subject with simplistic fear mongering.

:Some of it is simple denial, if you had spent two and a half years and millions of dollars of computer time, would you want your "projections" of the future climate based on GHG scenerios relegated to a mere intellectual exercise by a simple study such as Roesch's (see [[Climate model]]). The models are 5 or 10 years away from being accurate enough to attribute and project a 0.75W/m^2 energy imbalance. There is the distinct possibility that 5 or 10 years from now, they will still be 5 or 10 years away. --[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 19:44, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:38, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Equilibrium and Energy Imbalance ==

This is the name of a new section I'm not yet ready to write. What I intend to point out is the climate commitment studies of Wigley and Meehl, that show that most of the surface temperature response to a change in forcing, occurs within a few decades, but the energy imbalance continues, even after the initial response of the land surface and the top layer of the ocean, for centuries and can be continuing even after a thousand years, as heat is either stored into or released from the deep oceans. Since there has probably never been a thousand years without a volcanic eruption or some variation in solar activity beyond the 11 year cycle, the climate has never been in equilibrium, and thus is ALWAYs changing, either warming or cooling, and there is always an enery imbalance. Cites from Hansen and Pielke and others will quantify the current imbalance. (its much smaller than the documented errors in the models of course).

Since the plateau in solar activity that was reached circa 1940 is continuing (per Solanki), to this day, some of the energy imbalance must be attributable to this new (in equilibrium terms) solar forcing that has not yet had time to equilibrate. Attribution can get trickly. There was a midcentury 50s to 80s, cooling that was probably due to aerosols, so what is the subsequent warming to be attributed to? It is to be attributed to the reduction in aerosols or to a resumption of the climate's equilibration to the continuing level of solar forcing, which had merely been delayed by the aerosols? And greenhouse gas increases contributed as well. It is not an easy pie to cut. I think the climate commitment studies tell us that a solar contribution cannot be denied, nor a contribution from the earlier greenhouse gas increases. Transient forcings such as volcano eruptions don't get attribution unless they are currently occurring and what we are trying to attribute is currently occurring.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 04:50, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variability ==

I also intend a section where solar variability and cycles are discussed. I think we should prominently feature Solanki's statistical work, based on analysis of proxies of past solar activity, that shows that the current high plateau in solar activity has only an 8% probability of lasting until the year 2050. We also should have some acknowledgement of solar conveyor theory which predicts that the next cycle will be active, but the following cycle is expected to be unusually low. Then some discussion of the multidecadal and centuries long cycles. The 1470 year cycle gets us into the ice core record however, it is difficult to detect in the interglacials but probably persists there, the climate just isn't near a tipping point that allows its signature to be recorded, like it is during the ice ages. The cosmic ray link should also be discussed, but the scientific support, like also that for the solar conveyor theory is very preliminary, and should be identified as such.--[[User:Africangenesis|Africangenesis]] 05:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Try this columnist ==

Someone might find something useful for this article in [http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_aunty_catches_cold/ this newspaper column]. Actually, if you want to trawl through his blog, you might find more stuff, such as a link to [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1616 this site] showing pictures of a high-qual..., er, a weather station. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:26, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Stop Politicizing ==

*I removed several gossipy bits. Polls showing what non-expert citizens "think" are gossip. Since most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia? Speculation about how some possible legislation, at some point in the future, might effect Exxon-Mobile, is just plain crap as well. It is a given that the UN's panel was politicized, as its members were appointed by the governments involved, usually without some panel of experts recommending who to appoint. Please stop introducing material that explains away this fact. This article will now remain locked, and you can request a sysop to unlock it for editing, or post your wanted additions here. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::Using this precedent, I would like to request that the part of creationism article named "Popularity and Scientific Community Consensus" be abridged so that it is only the "Scientific Community Consensus" section now, as well as the "adherenets and opponents of creationism" be removed because according to you "most will have little understanding of actual science, their opinions merit what in this encyclopedia?" And creationism really is all about the science behind it, right? Not the faith, even if it is a tenant of many a religion.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 17:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

*You are out of line, posting about some other article here. Take your trolling someplace else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Union of Concerned Scientists ==

This article cites a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists which foundthat many scientists studying global warming had come under political pressure to alter their findings. The article takes it out of context to make it seem like this pressure is coming from the United Nation, when in reality that pressure is within the US Federal Government, i.e. the Bush administration. Conservapedia does not include a reference. Here is the study it was referring to: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html

Also, it should be noted that only one "hockey stick" graph has been discredited. Here is a link to several more that confirm the general "hockey stick" shape: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121

== Read the Sunspots ==

The following article was posted at http://www.projectalberta.com/board/viewtopic.php?p=34667&highlight=#34667

'''The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling'''

''R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Wednesday, June 20, 2007''

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 meters below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

© National Post 2007

Source; http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4

== Self-Induced Warming ==

'''Fiddler On The Roof
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY'''

Posted 6/22/2007

Climate Change: The problem with warming predictions may lie in how we measure the present. Can we say that 2006 was the warmest year ever when the temperature is being measured mere feet from air conditioning exhaust?

We are all familiar with the scenario. Junior wants to stay home from school so he holds a match under a thermometer and then runs to mom to say he has a fever. We don't think it's deliberate, but something similar may be happening with our weather-monitoring methodology.

In January, the folks at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration trumpeted the "fact" that 2006 was the warmest year ever recorded in the continental United States. This was based on daily temperature data gathered by NOAA's National Climactic Data Center and the 1,221 or so weather observation stations it monitors around the country.

Where these stations are and what is in the vicinity can make a difference. NOAA admits that stations have been moved and modernized as technology and the locales change. '''They provide input to the computer climate models that warming alarmists use to predict the day after tomorrow.'''

Bill Steigerwald of FrontPageMagazine.com reports on an enterprising former TV meteorologist in Chico, Calif., Anthony Watts, who wondered about the accuracy and reliability of these stations and a system that has been in use since the early 1900s.

So Watts and a few volunteers decided to check a few of them out, about 40 so far. They found one station in Forest Grove, Ore., that stands just 10 feet from an air conditioning exhaust vent. Another station in Roseburg, Ore., is on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., one is near a drum where trash is burned.

Watts has set up a Web site (http://www.surfacestations.org) to chronicle and document his group's findings. Watts observes: "I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment."

America is a lot more urbanized than it used to be. Lots of concrete and asphalt have been poured. Big cities full of tall buildings have gotten bigger and what greenies call urban sprawl continues. These cities are natural "heat islands" that can not only affect the weather but how we measure it. And if some urban dweller wants to put an A/C unit next to a station that records temperature on his property, what's to stop him or her?

In case you missed the headline in the New York Times, NOAA went back and updated its 2006 report based on "revised statistics." This is not unusual. NOAA does try to do its own station-checking to reflect changes in the station environments.

The result was that 2006 was determined to be the second-warmest year "on record."

The year 1998 still holds the honor. At an annual average temperature of 59.4 degrees Fahrenheit it was actually some 0.08 degrees cooler.

Warnings of imminent climate doom are based on computer models that are often based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather and climate. One of those variables is temperature, and it needs to be measured accurately.

Otherwise, as the computer geeks say: garbage in, garbage out.

== Fahrenheit and Celsius ==

I believe it would make for a better article if we don't switch from one to the other. I would recommend either using one, or putting the values for both in each instance where temperature change is sited. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

*I agree, and believe Ed will as well. Please make the changes, if you've a mind to. I have opened it. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:00, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::I would like everything to be in English units, because our readership is primarily Americans and most Americans are unfamiliar with the [[metric units]] used in Europe and elsewhere abroad. We can supply metric equivalents in braces, as needed.

::Another advantage of Fahrenheit is it shows how imprecise the measurements and predictions are. There's only been one degree of warming, and it's not even very precisely measured. The "[[error bars]]" are bigger than the increase! In other words, temperature can only be measured within an accuracy of 3 or 4 degrees, while the 1 degree average increase is tiny in comparison.

::It is only in industrial countries like the U.S. that accurate measurements are kept, which leads into the concept of [[temperature trend]]s, the maintenance of [[weather station]]s, the "contamination" of the [[urban heat island]] effect and so on. Did you know that Atlanta (called "Hotlanta" by one US government website) is more than 5 degrees hotter than the surrounding rural countryside? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. See the info I just inserted above....very telling. I wonder how many measuring stations in London, Madrid, Rio and the like have the same conditions? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::According to liberals (and Kyoto Protocol supporters) the [[Urban heat island effect]] is of little significance and has been properly accounted for.

::According to scientists, the 5 degree rise of Atlanta has ''not'' been accounted for. There's also a trend in California.

::The "contamination" of the [[temperature record]] rivals the supposed "human contribution" - but it can't explain it all away. Only liberals (and other cheaters) would dare to make a claim like that (see [[hockey stick graph]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==Politics of global warming==

Cut from article:

: and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Does it "appear so to them", or are they making a claim whose scientific accuracy they don't know or care about?

And do environmentalists actually believe their own claims, or do they promote their alarmism for ulterior motives? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:48, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

* http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_513219.html --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:32, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== False claims of consensus? ==

Firstly, for me it seams that it was year 1989 not 1992 when the poll was made, atleast according to the link you gave, and that is 18 years ago, which is 'huge' time in cases like this. Secondly it gives no refrenses to the study itself and personally couldnt find it from elswhere either. So, i suggest that this entry would be removed atleast untill better source is given and mention added that the study is out of date and a lot has happened in allmost 20 years. For a more reasent study i suggest the one puplished in science which gave completely diffrent result and should be offcourse the one to point out the current attitudes toward global warming, not study made allmost 20 years ago and which atleast i cant find from anywhere. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 15:59, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::As i don't hear any objections, ill go ahead and remove the entry. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 15:26, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't some other place. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:21, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, i don't quite understand what you mean? i see you reverted the deletion, but why? As said, there was no citation to the "study" and even if there where one, it would be 18 years old, IPCC was found in 1988 so that study would be really out dated, even more so when more reasent studyes are available, why should this study be used instead of those if not blatantly to push POV, and in a way that is clearly deceitful. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::And i see you locked the article, i don't see why, im not intrested on revert wars, so don't bother because of me, but i would like to hear some reasons for the revert. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 20:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::But we are not interested in ''attitudes'' about global warming - but what scientists who study the climate actually ''think'' about it. If you want to help me write a spin-off article on the [[Politics of global warming]], we can write about the attitudes expressed on the editorial pages of general scientific journals like ''Nature'' and ''Science''. But this article is only about what climatologists say.

:::We should quote specific climate scientists like [[Richard Lindzen]] and [[Fred Singer]]. If some recent graduate from a PhD program (like [[Michael Mann]]) wants to present a counter-argument, that's okay too - but we should not accept his new ideas if they run counter to the scientific consensus ''and'' they "cherry-pick" the data to omit evidence which disproves his ideas.

:::There is a lot of [[liberal bias]] on social science and environmental science - not to mention psychology, economics, religion, history, etc. We cannot be trustworthy if we report liberal ideas as if they were objective. They are not: they have an agenda, and a "dedication to reality at all costs" is in no way part of that agenda. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:04, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Attitudes? uhm... The article in science is study made by Naomi Oreskos, Science magazine which happens to be one of the most respected science journals just published his work. And that study was based on 928 papers made from global warming by many diffrent climatologists. Allso there are several IPCC reports affirming the consensus and over 30 scientific societies and academies of science agree, actually '''all'''of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

Under this overhelming amount of evidence, i can't see how some one can actually claim that a allmost 20 year old study to which there are no refrences should be used to show the current attitude towards global warming among climatologists. There is just no way anyone can justify that, its platant POV pushing. When the IPCC report at 2001 concluded that there was around 66%-90% certanity that the warming was caused atleast partly by human actions, the latest report said it to be over 90%, So you can only imagine how much has happened in 18 years and how much the attitudes have changed. If that raport referred by Lindzen actually existed and said what he claimed, im sorry, it's not you, but i have hard time trusting Richard Lindzen after reading some of his comments about smoking and cancer.

Lastly i have to say that i really hope you can have open enough mind to get out from gategoricing things as liberal facts and conservative facts, there are no such things, just facts that should be packed by evidence no matter what way they point or does it fit into your political views. Mayby science and it's findings seam liberal because the world is that way. For me, the whole american liberal/conservative thing seams actually quite odd, none of the other countryes i have worked or lived have had such controversy. More i read this site the more i wonder if there is any field in science that dosen't conflict with the world view this site promotes. And im really worryed about that. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 16:53, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

#Oreskes is not a "him", and her bias was already noted by Peiser, et al.
#''Science'' is not an objective source - they have rejected papers which passed peer review elsewhere, purely on the ground that the contents would "not be of interest to their readers". A journal whose readers would not be interested in a paper which contradicts what everyone wants to believe precisely because ''the readers don't want to hear anything that contradicts their preconceptions'' is not a good source for an encyclopedia article.
#The IPCC's bias is well known; it's a creature of the UN.
#National academies are creatures of their own governments.
#Anyway, science is not decided by votes. Rather it requires evidence and reasoning. To verify whether a theory is true or false, see [[Scientific method]].
#I agree that ''facts themselves'' are not liberal or conservative. The problem is that liberals and conservatives disagree on what the facts are. The [[hockey stick graph]] of Michael Mann is a case in point. The IPCC used his version of the temperature record ''precisely for the reason you condemned'', i.e., because it fit into their political views: i.e., they want to endorse the [[Kyoto Protocol]].
#Science is not liberal; rather, liberals distort scientific findings; they ignore anything that contradicts their world view.
#This site only seeks what is true. If you have evidence of any errors, please point them out. Using biased sources like ''Science'' journal or the UN won't help your argument; try citing a specific study by a particular scientist. And say what they observed and how they explain it. That's science. It's not science to say that a particular ''authority'' endorses an idea.
#If you're "really" worried about people who [[appeal to authority]] instead of seeking out and reporting what is really true, then you should help us create a complete and accurate article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:54, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, here is my lenghty response in return :)
# Peiser has taken back most of his critisism and states that he no longer doubts that overhelming majority of climatologists think that current global warming is caused by man. [http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf]
# I can only say that you don't share that opinnion with many people. Science magazine is higly respected amongst the scientists. And offcourse they reject articles that have passed peer review, there would be thousands of scientists wanting their work to be published by science, but it has limited resources. The fact that it can't publish everything sent to it dosen't mean that the articles published would be any less credible if anything, just the opposite, they should reprisent cream of the crop. Allso, it should not matter where the study was published, as long as it's sourced right and you can observe the study itself and draw your own conclusions.
# So, an conspiracy theory, that UN and IPCC would be out there to get US? And like most conspiracy theoryes, it really dosen't make any sense. What in earth could UN gain from it? How could they convince all the scientists to join this conspiracy without exposing it? Why would any scientist want to join them? Im sorry, but for me it seams like just an attempt to discredit them with vague accusations when there are not enough facts to do it.
# And National academies of science are just one part of the great conspiracy?
# True, most popular view isn't necesarily the right one, but it usually tells a lot when so many professionals dedicated to research that particular field of science come to same conclusion. It's not wise to just ignore that.
# Hmm, what other options and research there was beside the hockey stick graph that the IPCC ignored? I don't think that any scientists, even the most skeptic ones doubt anymore the fact that the climate is getting warmer, the question just is why.
# Thats just and generializing attack against all liberals without any evidence. I could make same kind of empty claims about conservatives and we wouldn't get anywhere.
# This one really deserves and through out answer, because here i think you are doing just the opposite what you are preaching. Lets see, you want and reliable source, i offer science magazine, one of the most respected scientific magazines, you in other hand offer some unknown website. You want me to cite a specific study, which i have all along done, the specific study is the one made by Oreskes and to which you can find citation from the science article. You offer a study that has no author that we know, there is no refrence to the whole study no where to be found and if there was, it would still be 18 years old. You want me to tell what they observed, which is just what i did, they observed that the papers they studyed showed there to be widly accepted consensus amongs climatolgist that the global warming was caused by man. On your study there isn't much to observe as i can't find even an abstract from it, but if one can trust the unknown website you offered, it shows that 18 years ago the scientists in American Meteorological Society where divided if not sceptical about the global warming. What it dosen't of course mention as it's that old is that in 2003 that same organisation published an statement concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (American Meteorological Society, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 508 (2003)). So i can't really understand, why that article of yours got to the conservapedia entry, if you claim to have such a high criteria on what you trust, Unless it's because it supports your world view.
# That is exactly what im trying to do. I dont think that the current article is accurate in any way, atleast the part we are discussing now.

But during the whole discussion we have had about this subject, you haven't answered anything to my enquiryes to why you are willing to use that source of yours, when there is no citation to it, no reasearh to be found and it's so old that it can't be in anyway considered to be representing the current views on the subject. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 17:33, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not going to answer all your points, because this is not a debate page. We are trying to improve the global warming article, that's all.

:Oreskes did not read 928 articles but only their abstracts. And she is not a disinterested analyst but an advocate of "action" on global warming.

:But if you have some information of the absolute number of scientists (or a percentage from a survey) who give partial or full credence to the theory of [[anthropogenic global warming]], that would be good to have. Please supply a summary, with a reference.

:However, that properly belongs in [[Politics of global warming]] because polls and surveys are not science. Science is facts, along with theories which explain them. (Note that a 'model' which has been tweaked to fit a period of a few decades is not a theory.)

:And if you ''really'' want to help, you can explain all about [[albedo]], [[cosmic ray]]s, [[sunspot]]s, [[solar variation]], and the various natural [[climate cycle]]s. We need to know about these first, before we can judge the extend of the human contribution. Would you care to help in this way? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:29, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

How does the fact that Oreskes her self believes the global warming to be caused by man anyways lessen the value of her reasearch? i once again ask, if the author of your investigation was neutral? oh wait, we don't even know who he was, but we know that the person who claims this reasearch to show something is all but neutral. You are allso moving the goal posts as we move along, first you want peer reviewed cited studyes which addres the consensus on the global warming, when i give you those you no longer think them valid but demand studyes made from invidual scientists, like that would have any change on the subject. There are over 160 countryes that have ratified the kyoto protocol, the joint science academies agreed on the consensus on 2005, All the known academies of science agree on the consensus and have publically announced so, the only science academy ever to doubt human produced global warming (American Association of Petroleum Geologists, suprise suprise) is changing their view as "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members" After that there are no notable or known academies to disagree. It's mind blowing that some one in situation like this can even suggest that there wasn't consensus. Where would all those doubtfull scientist be? They arent members of any academies? they don't make any studyes on the subject? There are offcourse few invidual scientist who disagree, as there allways is, but they are tiny part of the picture. And most of even them agree that they are on the opposing side of the concensus, like Peiser did...

But still i see that your post about the false concensus stays on the page. It violates all of the principles you have demanded from my studyes, it's so old that it's rediculous. But you just ignore these facts and don't comment it in anyway. You ask why im not helping on the other parts of this article? It's simply because im disgusted about it's current state and think the major errors should be fixed instead of adding new ones. This intellectual dishonesty reprisented here endagers the lifes of our children, i suggest that you carefully read what i wrote and really think if your comment on the article is intellectually honest one, the one you can proudly defend when your childrens ask you 30 years from now, what you where doing about the subject at your time. Im sorry if i sound harsh, but i really beliave this to be important for the future of us and the coming generations. And i do think there can be made intelligent arguments against the global warming, but denying the obvious concensus on the subject definetle isn't one of those. [[User:HeikkiL|HeikkiL]] 19:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:How does the fact that some scientist who are skeptical about anthropogenic global warming have (1) "taken money" from Big Oil or (2) are "aligned" with Bush or the conservative movement?

:You profess disgust, but is this political (because science is in sharp disagreement with the treaty ratifiers)? Or do you have some information about the Earth's climate which only liberals know?

:Do you think that this encyclopedia should publish scientific work only by people who agree with you, or who are neutral? That is not our policy, because one-sided views aren't trustworthy. We publish the truth, even when it disagrees with the mainstream of liberal thought.

:You are free to ignore the peer-reviewed, published studies cited by Singer, Lindzen, etc. Even a ''novelist'' like [[Michael Crichton]] has found out about peer-reviewed, published studies which disagree with the liberal POV.

:But an encyclopedia cannot afford to censor the truth. We'll leave that to moribund publications such as Wikipedia, which makes a cottage industry out of intellectual dishonesty.

:Meanwhile, if you find any scientific evidence ''in favor'' of [[AGW]], please add it to the article. Unlike Wikipedia, we want to present both sides.

::I have a note to add to this discussion. You (I am not sure of the author, they are not listed) say above, "we want to present both sides." Unless I am mistaken, this discussion is revolving around the acquisition of '''facts''' for an article on Global Warming. You cannot "present both sides" of a fact, because facts do not have two sides. There is not a 'liberal' side and a 'conservative' side of a fact. There are two sides to every story, every debate, every controversy, but facts have only one side: unbiased truth. The only way that you can present a fact is to present it without bias. You cannot fix 'liberal bias' on a 'fact' by instead presenting the fact with 'conservative bias'. You can, however, fix liberal bias on an article which ''interprets'' facts, and from them produces an opinion. You could, in this way, "present both sides" by reporting a study (a fact) along with two articles - one from a source widely considered to be 'liberal', and one from a source widely considered to be 'conservative'. But first, you ''must'' present the facts. [[User:Simple|Simple]] 09:59 (GMT -5) 3 July 2007

Vegetarianism

2007-07-02T21:44:08Z

Simple: altered 'Famous Vegetarians' to include a larger, more representative variety of personas

'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic]] religions, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. <ref>For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people. [http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department] </ref> It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to "inhumane" farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact.

Health can be given as another reason. In Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

It can be difficult to get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products, and many vegetarians take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods. <ref>"Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s" [http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html] </ref> <ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements] </ref>

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*Vegan - Someone who consumes only a diet based on plants; no animal meat, animal products such as milk or cheese, or byproducts such as gelatin.
*Lactovegetarian - Someone who eats a plant based diet but also eats animal produced foods such as milk and cheese.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or lacto-ovovegetarian) - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.

==Famous Vegetarians==
*[[Pol Pot]] - Vegan Despot and Mass Murderer
*[[Charles Manson]] - Vegan Animal Rights Activist, inspired his followers to commit murder
*[[Volkert Van der Graaf]] - Vegan Assassin and Murderer
*[[Adolf Hitler]] - Vegetarian Megalomaniac Mass Murderer
*[[Squeaky Fromme]] - attempted assassination of President [[Gerald Ford]]
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]
[http://www.vegetariansareevil.com/killers.html]
[http://www.famousveggie.com/]

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]

[[category:psychology]] [[category:biology]]

Conservapedia:Guidelines

2007-07-02T20:27:09Z

Simple: /* Attribution */

== Attribution ==

There's a difference between '''stating flatly''' that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and '''reporting''' that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." Likewise, there's a difference between saying "All living species of animals evolved from earlier species" and saying "Most biologists believe that all living species of animals evolved from earlier species".

English teachers call that [[attribution]].

Here's another example:
*It was raining on Tuesday. (unattributed)
*John said it was raining on Tuesday. (attributed)
Newspaper report on a murder trial:
*Smith killed Jones.
*Judge Robinson found Smith guilty of killing Jones.

Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a [[biased assertion]] into an [[attribution]]. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X."

Notice that at no point do these statements endorse any of the views. The sample text provided merely states what each view is, without saying whether any of them is correct or incorrect.

Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe". <ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.phptitle=Talk:John_the_Baptist&diff=prev&oldid=212792 Ed Poor (→Proposed sections for alteration: please add to discussion - Why not do here what Wikipedia CLAIMS it does?)]</ref>

In regards to attribution, always cite and give credit to your sources,<ref>Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others. No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.</ref> even if in the [[public domain]]. Conservapedia's [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] assists new [[wiki]] users on [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to put footnotes]] in an article.

== Notes ==
<references/>

== Civility ==

* You must be civil. No bullying.

* Your user page/discussion pages, are indeed your castle, from which you can agree, disagree and discuss issues as you will. However you cannot use them to bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions.
* There is a difference between intellectual discourse, and attacking someone for what they believe. Wikipedia condones bullying and mob rule, we don’t.
* Violators of this CP Guideline will be blocked.

== Article level ==

Articles should be written ''as much as possible'' to be understandable at a high school (ages 14 to 18) level, in order to insure they will be accessible and educational to students. If more complex information is necessary, as in advanced math entries, then it should be explained as simply as possible in the introduction, and a full explanation should follow in the body of the article.

== Reliability ==

A few suggestions about reliability.

#Reliability is the quality that makes people want to rely on you.
#It's like trust: you have to earn it.
#People test you, and you must pass their test, or they won't trust you or rely on you.
#A major difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is how much each group is willing to have its pronouncements checked, its actions reviewed and evaluated
#Science is reliable when enough scientists make enough effort to check each other's work.
#*The watchwords of science are [[falsifiability]] and [[reproducible results]].
#[[Bias]] gets in the way of reliability.
#Neutrality may not be an antidote to bias.

== Sources ==

We should not allow any and all citations to newspaper stories. Journalistic opinions are not authorities, and journalists are not authorities on scientific issues. It is better to cite the scientific article directly.

== Teamwork ==

A few suggestions about teamwork.

#Let others boss you around.
#*Yes, take assignments from your fellow editors. If someone asks you for an article on a topic you know about, or are interested enough to bone up on, please do.
#*Conform to formats, styles, and emerging patterns of article organization.
#Be nice to the other editors.
#*Sarcasm seems witty when you're typing, but will the reader really get the point you are trying to make?
#*Hurt feelings reduce cooperative spirit and ultimately work against teamwork.
#Be helpful.
#*Are you good at spellchecking, grammar, copyediting?
#*Do you know how to design a template or format a table?
#Let others know what you are doing, and respond quickly to queries.
#*Use talk pages, especially [[user talk page]]s.
#*Allow others to contact you via email or [[instant messaging]]
#*For really difficult issues, consider speaking by telephone

== More ==
See also:
* [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style]]
* Other guidelines at [[:Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

[[category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Pregnancy

2007-07-02T20:09:38Z

Simple: /* Reproduction */

==Reproduction==
'''Pregnancy''' is a term often used to refer to the physical state of many animal species (most notably humans) in which an individual is carrying a developing infant inside of its [[womb]]. While female individuals of a species are typically thought of as being the only members of a species capable of pregnancy, there are some cases in which a male individual, and not a female, is responsible for harboring the developing infants within his body. Additionally, the duration of a typical Pregnancy varies significantly between species.

Pregnancy typically follows successful [[copulation]] between a male and a female individual of the same species, though modern medicine has made available alternate means of inducing pregnancy. Following pregnancy, an infant individual of the same species as the male and female [[Parent]] individual is expelled from the womb of the pregnant individual. In some cases, multiple individuals can be produced and expelled from a single pregnancy. In other, less fortunate cases, [[miscarriage]] has been known to occur.

Pregnancy

2007-07-02T20:08:58Z

Simple: /* Reproduction */

==Reproduction==
'''Pregnancy''' is a term often used to refer to the physical state of many animal species (most notably humans) in which an individual is carrying a developing infant inside of its [[womb]]. While female individuals of a species are typically thought of as being the only members of a species capable of pregnancy, there are some cases in which a male individual, and not a female, is responsible for harboring the developing infants within his body. Additionally, the duration of a typical Pregnancy varies significantly between species. Pregnancy typically follows successful [[copulation]] between a male and a female individual of the same species, though modern medicine has made available alternate means of inducing pregnancy. Following pregnancy, an infant individual of the same species as the male and female [[Parent]] individual is expelled from the womb of the pregnant individual. In some cases, multiple individuals can be produced and expelled from a single pregnancy. In other, less fortunate cases, [[miscarriage]] has been known to occur.

Pregnancy

2007-07-02T20:07:38Z

Simple: New page: ==Reproduction== '''Pregnancy''' is a term often used to refer to the physical state of many animal species (most notably humans) in which an individual is carrying a developing infant in...

==Reproduction==
'''Pregnancy''' is a term often used to refer to the physical state of many animal species (most notably humans) in which an individual is carrying a developing infant inside of its [[womb]]. While female individuals of a species are typically thought of as being pregnant, there are some cases in which a male individual, and not a female, is responsible for harboring the developing infants within his body. Additionally, the duration of a typical Pregnancy varies significantly between species. Pregnancy typically follows successful [[copulation]] between a male and a female individual of the same species, though modern medicine has made available alternate means of inducing pregnancy. Following pregnancy, an infant individual of the same species as the male and female [[Parent]] individual is expelled from the womb of the pregnant individual. In some cases, multiple individuals can be produced and expelled from a single pregnancy. In other, less fortunate cases, [[miscarriage]] has been known to occur.

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-07-02T19:32:13Z

Simple: /* No */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

The statement "Killed eight times and emerge unscathed" is not actually true. lol --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I don't see how you can begin to make such a claim! I believe very firmly that it is completely true, without exception. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and mark this statement as 'citation needed'. ;) [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:31 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Not that I'm biased==

I'm allergic to cats, and lived with one for the first ten or eleven years of my life before we figured it out. We just didn't know why I was sick all the time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ha,ha! That is so funny! My cousin and Aunt are also allergic to cats(dogs too). --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 15:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-07-02T19:11:40Z

Simple: /* It is unclear */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Just a humorous note - that statement does not necessarily imply that a living dog is also better than a living lion. I mean, if you asked me if I'd prefer to have a living dog or a living supermodel in my house, I'd choose the latter. If, on the other hand, you gave me the choice between a living dog and a dead supermodel... [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:11 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-07-02T19:05:17Z

Simple: /* No */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
:Cats can be:
:-Made into violin or racquet strings
:-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
:-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
:-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
:-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
:-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs

2007-07-02T19:01:17Z

Simple: /* No */

{{debate-humorous}}

==Even more useless than dogs==

I constantly fight against the temptation to put catnip in the road ; ) --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

cats are very useless! all they do is lay around and eat all day.

Yes, I will admit that cats are '''EXTREMELY'''(not just very) useless(even if they are cute). ''':P''' At least dog will run around and play with a ball, frisby, whatever.[[User:BethanyS|~BethanyS~]]

==Yes==
People who have cats really want a dog but haven't got the time to keep one. So they settle for a cat which is vastly inferior because you can't take it for walks, it wont bring anything back to you unless it killed it first, and it will never ever treat you with anything less than complete contempt.

:::It is well known, in fact that cats ARE dogs, in spite of what those silly, left-wing inspired dictionaries, naturalists, scientists, and pet owners claim. We at Conservapedia face an uphill battle undoing several centuries of leftwing brainwashing that attempts to sell the notion that these domesticated, four-legged mammal carnivores are different animals entirely, and as soon as I find some scientists and naturalists who agree with me, I'll be sure to post them as cites. Honest. Cross my heart and hope to die. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:Hey PF Fox, I'm a scientist. I agree. They are genetically more similar than a European Garden Snail is to an African Land Snail, yet we'd still call both of these creatures 'snails'. It's our mamaliocentric view of life that makes us classify very similar animals as being different. (Like chimps and humans perhaps - sorry creationists, just playing devils advocate, this is conservapedia and we are all entitled to our views!) So lets hear it for Cogs, or is that Dats? [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 08:42, 13 April 2007 (BST)

==No==
Cats are different altogether from dogs. Some people(myself included) aren't fans of dogs.[[User:Nsmyth]] 09:15, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

People who have dogs are emotionally insecure individuals who need the validation of constant, interminable, unremitting, unconditional affection, affection, affection. That is why Walt Whitman wrote:

:I think I could turn and live with cats, they are so placid and self-contain’d
:I stand and look at them long and long.
:They do not sweat and whine about their condition;
:They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins;
:Not one kneels to another, nor to his kind that lived thousands of years ago;
:Not one is respectable or industrious over the whole earth.

::::(What Whitman actually wrote "I think I can turn and live with ''animals,''" but the passage just applies to perfectly to ''cats'' that I'm sure it was just a mistake on his part and that he meant to write "cats," so I've corrected the text accordingly...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, dogs slobber.

Well, cats do, too, but at least cats have the courtesy to spread it thinly and discreetly all over their body in a dignified way, where it dries out and becomes invisible except for adding that subtle gloss to their coat.

Unlike our Newfoundland who flings great stringy arcs of slobber all over the house, leaving big dried strings of Newfie spittle on the couch, the television set, and as high as five feet up on our walls. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is what Lord Byron said of his dog, which was evidently better than Walt Whitmans cat;

Near this spot

Are deposited the Remains of one

Who possessed Beauty without Vanity,

Strength without Insolence,

Courage without Ferocity,

And all the Virtues of Man without his Vices.

This Praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery

If inscribed over human ashes,

Is but a just tribute to the Memory of

BOATSWAIN, a DOG

Who was born at Newfoundland, May, 1803,

And died at Newstead, Nov 18th, 1808.

You dont get that with a cat do you!?? Well, do you??
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:40, 12 April 2007, (BST)

::Yeah, Newfies are great—I trust everybody knows that Nana, the dog that took care of the Darling children in ''Peter Pan,'' was really a Newfie, but Disney turned her into a St. Bernard just for the visual appeal.[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are different to dogs, I agree. A little. But they're not as good. They don't do as much.
[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:32, 12 April 2007, (BST)

Hmm...eyupdutch, this is interesting and I am intrigued...so when dogs chase cats are they playing or defending their terretory like any normal dog v. dog situation. And also...why do people think that the left-wingers want to brainwash us into thinking that dogs and cats are different...again I don't strongly disagree...I'm just interested.
Kind thanks, bealecr

I love both cats and dogs, but when faced with an infestation of rats, cats are much better at dealing with it. They take less maintainance than dogs - I can happily leave my cat to look after itself for a week, which would be unthinkable for a dog. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 21:06, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

Absolutely not! Cats are in no way useless. Cats have many uses of which I'll name just a few.
Cats can be:
-Made into violin or racquet strings
-Eaten in fine foreign cuisine
-Taunted for amusement with yarn, feathers and the like
-Dropped upside-down from very high places, only to land rightside-up
-Made into effective scapegoats of superstitious belief
-Killed eight times and emerge unscathed

From this short list, surely everyone can begin to see just how useful cats truly are! [[User:Simple|Simple]] 15:05 (GMT-5) 2 July 2007

== It is unclear ==

The Bible mentions dogs far more than cats, but it does not speak well of them. Are dogs holier (and therefore better) by their more frequent inclusion, or does the biblical censure of dogs make cats the superior being by default? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

The Bible says "a living dog is better than a dead lion," for whatever that's worth. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Hmm. Interesting point raised there. The ancient egyptians used to worship cats didn't they. Surely that's a false idol? Did/does any culture worship dogs? If christian texts favour the dog, maybe this is a question of the relative moral worth of cats and dogs, rather than a mere objective comparisson of the two creatures. Shall we move this to the religious debates I wonder?? [[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (BST)

==Maybe?==
I got 4 cats and about to get another 2 but yet my mom says no dog because they are too much trouble. I would have to say that dogs and cats are equailly hard to take care of. It's slightly easier to take care of cats though with the having them poo in a box instead of having to get up at 2 AM to let fido outback to run and pee everywhere.

Cats .. are not 'useless' dogs. Just .. simplier dogs. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:34, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Cats are free to roam about and poo on other peoples gardens though. It upsets your neighbours and forces them to put it back through your mailbox. (Or maybe that's just where I live). Regarding the 'letting the dog out' problem - maybe some sort of dogflap is required??

==Feline Intelligence==

Cats are subtle, devious and very very egocentric. Cats treat humans as if they were other cats, whereas dogs attempt to become human. Cats will come to you to be stroked, but if you don't do it right, or they tire of you, you may find that you are suddenly grabbed by claws or teeth. It's what a cat would do to another cat (on friendly terms) to say 'ok, thats enough'. I have known cats to walk into a room, lie on a chair, and when asked to move ''pretend'' to be asleep, then behave as if they have been there for hours. Soem cats will even argue with you visibly and vocally. If you understand cat intelligence, you are in a world of subtlety, arrogance and individual need. It's like having the most determined and self-assured three year old imaginable.
--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macavity was here!--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 04:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Dogs are failed cats. Cats do no work, loll about all day, treat us like servants and we ''still'' fawn over them. looks like success, from a cat's point of view. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:21, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-07-02T18:36:22Z

Simple: /* Theory 3 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

If the speed of light had changed in the past, would we not see some evidence of it today? I'm no physicist, but I do know one thing about light: when light particles collide with matter they impart energy to that matter, making it warmer. Now, from what I do know of physics it seems to me that the warming effect of light on matter should have something to do with the speed at which said light is travelling. My point is this: if light once travelled much faster than it does today, would that light not also have had a much greater warming effect on matter that it collided with? Would you not, then, expect that modern science would have at least some ability to observe the evidence of light's changing speed. I could only imagine that examples of such evidence might include planets that are completely scorched, or have been scorched in the past, without any current explanation as to why such scorching could have occurred. If light was travelling at faster speeds while there was life present on earth, I can only imagine that some of those creatures would've been getting one heck of a sunburn! [[User:Simple|Simple]] (14:31 GMT-5) 2 July 2007

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-07-02T18:32:57Z

Simple: /* Theory 3 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

If the speed of light had changed in the past, would we not see some evidence of it today? I'm no physicist, but I do know one thing about light: when light particles collide with matter they impart energy to that matter, making it warmer. Now, from what I do know of physics it seems to me that the warming effect of light on matter should have something to do with the speed at which said light is travelling. My point is this: if light once travelled much faster than it does today, would that light not also have had a much greater warming effect on matter that it collided with? Would you not, then, expect that modern science would have at least some ability to observe the evidence of light's changing speed. I could only imagine that examples of such evidence might include planets that are completely scorched, or have been scorched in the past, without any current explanation as to why such scorching could have occurred. If light was travelling at faster speeds while there was life present on earth, I can only imagine that some of those creatures would've been getting one heck of a sunburn! [[User:Simple|Simple]] (14:31 GMT-5)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-07-02T18:31:44Z

Simple: /* Theory 3 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

: The stars that are 7000-8000 light years away, speaking relatively, are our close neighbors in the Milky Way galaxy. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years in diameter and contains about 100,000,000 stars. There are hundreds of BILLIONS of galaxies (100,000,000,000+). The most distant light our telescopes have detected comes from recently discovered stars 13-14 billion light years away. That means that light has been traveling at 185,000 MILES PER SECOND for 14,000,000,000 years to reach us from those stars. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: I respect everyone's beliefs here, but I find that the most beautiful resolution for myself is to see God as operating above our level of existence. Why would He speak of a day as the same mundane day you and I experience? The saying that 1,000 years to us is but a blink of an eye to Him comes to mind. I believe that the days in Genesis simply weren't literally days in terms of the Earth spinning around once, but they were days as God experiences them in his higher existence. I find it unfathomable that God would deceive us with empirical evidence like red-shifted light from stars and dinosaur fossils and so on. God is not that petty.. God is love, and God is honest, as he asks us to be. --[[User:CastleVania|CastleVania]] 22:17, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

If the speed of light had changed in the past, would we not see some evidence of it today? I'm no physicist, I do know one thing about light: when light particles collide with matter they impart energy to that matter, making it warmer. Now, from what I do know of physics it seems to me that the warming effect of light on matter should have something to do with the speed at which said light is travelling. My point is this: if light once travelled much faster than it does today, would that light not also have had a much greater warming effect on matter that it collided with? Would you not, then, expect that modern science would have at least some ability to observe the evidence of light's changing speed. I could only imagine that examples of such evidence might include planets that are completely scorched, or have been scorched in the past, without any current explanation as to why such scorching could have occurred. If light was travelling at faster speeds while there was life present on earth, I can only imagine that some of those creatures would've been getting one heck of a sunburn! [[User:Simple|Simple]] (14:31 GMT-5)

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me that you are basically correct. I cannot think of any kind of reasonable way out of this. Why has no-one thought of this argument earlier? I knew, for example that relativity and creation were in direct conflict; basically if you create something out of nothing, then this creates huge issues with gravitational fields etc., but this question is so simple, especially the fact that stars were supposedly created, but you have to either accept that they are al lot nearer (say a couple of light-days), or that Adam and Eve would not be able to see starlight for years. This effectively kills off Young Earth Creation. Wonderful. That';s that obne sorted, now to set about Intelligent Design.--[[User:Felix|Felix]] 06:21, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Um, No==

The problem discussed here is irrelevant if you think that, just maybe, the universe might be ''really'' old. As many sages far more sagacious than I have said, why would "God lie to us"? He apparently made a ''very'' old universe, from our perspective. Why are we to argue with the evidence? He ''expects'' us to figure this stuff out, and dwells in His joy when we do. With every advance, we get closer to knowing the Mind of God - the true goal of philosophy. [[User:Human|Human]] 23:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's also irrelevant if you believe that God either created the Universe as an operating mechanism - it hit the ground running, if you like - rather than kicking off the Big Bang, or that the creation referred to in the Bible refers only to the Earth (or the Solar System).

The former would also include the creation of fossils and so forth, and would mean that the Universe was created by God to ''appear'' (to us) to be so many billion years old, but its true age is unknown and unknowable. The Starlight Problem, Carbon-14 levels, etc., are all part of the bluebrint.

The latter idea, that the Universe existed previously and Genesis refers to the the creation of the Earth, is easier (in some ways), and nothing in the scripture goes against it. In fact, references to "the void" could refer to this region of space in its unpopulated state. Further down, "Let there be light" could be the creation of Sol, and night and day the fixing of the Earth's rotational speed.
[[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 05:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Conservapedia:Front Page

2007-07-02T16:40:26Z

Simple: /* Don't Change A Thing */

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine.
The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==What quotation?==

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?[[User:Seekcommon]]

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page.
Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. [[User:Seekcommon]]

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)[[User:Seekcommon]]

All true.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy ''We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it'' - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is.
And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

''And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
''
[[User:Seekcommon]]

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page!
Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, ''Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'' [[User:Seekcommon]]

==Don't Change A Thing==

The front page is everything I expect from a conservative internet publication. You don't like the way it reads, start liberapedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Id hate to think what they would have on their front page.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I'd be willing to consider this suggestion to create 'liberapedia' a valid one, were it not for the existence of wikipedia. The genuine, unbiased medium that it provides is something that I have often found so-called 'liberals' to approve of strongly. Attempts to immitate it would, I think, be met with skepticism and be percieved as lacking credibility.

:I also find it strange that you even make the suggestion, since the "About Conservapedia" section of this website already proclaims Wikipedia to be "6 times more Liberal than the American Public". [[User:Simple|Simple]]

==2Evil&GodlessLiberals==
1. Religious texts aren't propaganda.
2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia".
3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement.
4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner.
Happy Earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
: Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Conservapedia:Front Page

2007-07-02T16:38:35Z

Simple: /* Don't Change A Thing */

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine.
The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==What quotation?==

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?[[User:Seekcommon]]

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page.
Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. [[User:Seekcommon]]

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)[[User:Seekcommon]]

All true.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy ''We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it'' - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is.
And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

''And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
''
[[User:Seekcommon]]

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page!
Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, ''Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'' [[User:Seekcommon]]

==Don't Change A Thing==

The front page is everything I expect from a conservative internet publication. You don't like the way it reads, start liberapedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Id hate to think what they would have on their front page.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I'd be willing to consider this suggestion to create 'liberapedia' a valid one, were it not for the existence of wikipedia. The genuine, unbiased medium that it provides is something that I have often found so-called 'liberals' to approve of strongly. Attempts to immitate it would, I think, be met with skepticism and be percieved as lacking credibility. [[User:Simple|Simple]]

==2Evil&GodlessLiberals==
1. Religious texts aren't propaganda.
2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia".
3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement.
4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner.
Happy Earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
: Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Conservapedia:Front Page

2007-07-02T16:16:42Z

Simple:

Wikipedia also has News on the right side, but most of the front page matter is "encylopedic". Here, today, on the right it is about the madman at Virginia Tech and several references to his Anti Christian Rant - on the right and the left side ... and am sure it will dominate the front page. Also, Bible quotations on the front page? Encylopedia or a platform to push the Bible? Is anything else quotable on the front page? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I know what you mean, shouldn't we wait until the official investigation reveals new facts, instead of immediately politicizing the whole case and just maybe try to use reason and logic to analyse this case.

Maybe something like this: (I know it's just speculation and I have no tangible evidence for this.)

To me it seems that guy was a troubled kid, probably obsessed with unreachable women, who was laughed by his "rich-kid" classmates and felt cornered by his parent's strong religious beliefs and one day decided he wanted to "make the world pay", like those kids from Columbine.
The name Ishmael could be (notice the use of the words "could be" instead of "is") a reference to him recognizing himself in the biblical Ishmael who was rejected by his society, instead of an alledged Muslim connection.

I'd say that's the just about the whole story, no conspiracies against "America" and no evil brainwashing porn.

So yes, propaganda like this and all of the "liberals this and liberals that" crap doesn't belong on the front page of an encyclopedia"

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==What quotation?==

I don't see any Bible quotations. What are you ranting about?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:45, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Before Mr. Cho posed on the main page, they had a fresh bible quotation every day.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, they did (as Middle Man has noted) and THAT was what I was talking about, RANT if you choose to say I do. So, is IT or is IT not propaganda for advancing the Bible? And why the rush to judgement about "anti christian" rant(s) or whatever that madman may have said/written? Would Conservapedia have said anything if the rants were anti-(fill in the religion other than the christianity practiced by the moderators)?? I think not. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Oh, so you're having a problem when a quotation from the Bible is posted everyday.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:06, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Is this a Bible encyclopedia? Or a Conservative Encyclopedia? If Conservapedia, and Bible quotations are to be included, SAY SO. Do not claim it is an "Encylopedia" and put Bible quotations on the front. Unless, to you and a lot of others, being a Conservative means the Bible (and ofcourse the version the moderators are willing to accept and what they reject selectively or accept selectively) - Perhaps it would be a good idea to put quotes from the Bible about the blood thirsty almighty that is always seeking/asking put people to death - including for working on the sabbath and on and on. Have I committed blasphemy and should I await thunder and lightning and all that?[[User:Seekcommon]]

I just believe a truly reliable and unbiased encyclopedia would be more credible without this much propaganda on its main page.
Like Seekcommon said, if they posted quotations from the Koran or the Vedda's on the main page, every moderater on here would call it propaganda.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Not to many I am afraid. Selective quotes and the spreading of paranoia is what drives many extremists and yes there is no difference between a "Christian" extremist and an "Islamic" extremist or a "Hindu" extremist or a "Jewish" extremist. They all think THEY know the answer and the way to the truth. [[User:Seekcommon]]

"Conservative" does not equal evangelist or christian or (fill-in-the-blanks), neither does "Liberal" mean "one that wants to kill the unborn" or people who do not believe in God. Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century may be called "Conservative" by many, but I have heard him describe himself as "Liberal" - and as he explained, "Liberal" used to mean what many today called themselves "Conservatives". But then again I have heard many of today's "Liberals" characterize conservatives as religious nuts which they are not. Yes, there is "Liberal" evil (good) and "Conservative" evil (good)[[User:Seekcommon]]

All true.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

The front page diatribe continues, today the complaint is about a poem that is said to be "Liberal" and the fact that it does not mention "God" or "prayer". Uh?? It is a beautiful poem that shows how sad the VT commumity is due to the tragedy ''We do not understand this tragedy We know we did nothing to deserve it'' - The words reflect the bewilderment of all humans at senseless killings. Since the omniscient God knows everything including the past and the future, were they supposed to have said "Thank God" for "what Thou has brought?" ... Many, many students were shown praying - on TV, openly crying, grieving ... Yet, the diatribe here is about how "God" was missing in the poem. Uh??? [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have to say however that there is a silver lining to the diatribes and the single minded devotion to a specific cause and the lashing out at those that do not fall in line. The more unreasonable the position is, the better most people understand how unreasonable they are and so it does become easier to deal with. So, yea, go ahead and look in every nook and corner on how some "Liberal" somewhere does not mention "God" or "refuses" to pray. Keep saying it loudly and often. There are already references to the mad man's writings/videos and such, next perhaps the effort should be on the victims - and from what I have seen, in addition to "Christians" some of the victims were Muslims and Hindus. Did THEY deserve to be killed? Which "God" "ordered" that?? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Yes, exactly, God has nothing to do with this (talk about unrelated subjects), the poem is fine the way it is.
And if questioning (social) injustice around the world is the work of evil Godless liberals, than I'm proud to be an evil Godless liberal!

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

And here is something from the Good Book. Matthew 6:5-8

''And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
''
[[User:Seekcommon]]

I love that quote! I'm gonna put it on my page!
Jesus had much to teach, he was right there on the same level as Buddha, it's a shame his followers misinterpreted him so often.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I love it too. In fact, the essence of what Jesus wrote/stood for is timeless and will remain uncorrupted by the vain and the power hungry who use what Jesus said/wrote for their own purposes. The breadth of human experience seen through the people, prophets is so similar yet it is painful to watch the hijacking of particulars from one religion to persecute those who in their minds do not follow those teachings. There is a lot more common among the fundamental human experiences and "religion" and more that binds than things that SEEM to separate and differentiate. Peace ... Or, to use another language, ''Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti'' [[User:Seekcommon]]

==Don't Change A Thing==

The front page is everything I expect from a conservative internet publication. You don't like the way it reads, start liberapedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:27, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Id hate to think what they would have on their front page.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I'd be willing to consider this suggestion to create 'liberapedia' a valid one, were it not for the existence of wikipedia. The genuine, unbiased medium that it provides is something that I have often found so-called 'liberals' to approve of strongly. Attempts to immitate it would, I think, be met with scepticism and be percieved as lacking credibility. [[User:Simple|Simple]]

==2Evil&GodlessLiberals==
1. Religious texts aren't propaganda.
2. Go to the bottom of the web page and read "About Conservapedia".
3. Read previous posts and see where that conflicts with "About Conservapedia" statement.
4. Respond in an evil, godless, liberal manner.
Happy Earth day!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:56, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess I am puzzled for referring to a response with quotes from Matthew as Evil and Godless. I guess Matthew is someone else then and in his writing and in the Bible I saw, it is something very different. I appreciate your pointing them out to me. From now on, I will consider everything Matthew has written to be evil. Unless, you can correct me since you know everything. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Look what they came up with now: according to the front page Mr. Schlaffy can apparently predict the future: he already knows who's going to win the second round of the French Presidential elections.

Seekcommon, I'm right there with you.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

::Since you know everything? Last time I heard that was from a 10 year old girl; and she was right. Dude, he only won the first round, get a grip! Also, thanks for following number four. Please, carry on.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I do agree with you on the issue of age, we do lose a lot as we age, I know, I have an intelligent one myself that I learn from. But I am curious, point 4, you talk about responding in an "Evil, Godless, Liberal" manner ... Does that also refer to my quoting Matthew? [[User:Seekcommon]]

Of course I know he only won the first round, but the front page says he won the elections altogether.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
: Then again, a story from the Left. When Daniel Ortega was defeated the first time in Nicaragua, Peter Jennings that this incredible look on his face and kept wondering how he lost when "polls" indicated that he should have won. It is as if, Jennings so wanted Ortega to win that he could not accept the decision. Mainstream media were stunned that a left winger lost an election. So, stuff happens. [[User:Seekcommon]]