Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Physics

2007-06-09T17:33:02Z

Sm355:

'''Physics''' is the study of nature, and is the science that deals with the laws of the universe. [[Galileo]] was the first to discover and propose some of the fundamental laws of physics that we still use today. He began by studying how a ball rolled down an incline and showed that its speed would be proportional to the height it started at. A scientist who studies ''physics'' is called a [[physicist]].

[[Newton]] devised many theories still commonly used in the branch of mechanics. The most famous of which, the law of gravity, was published in his notoriously difficult book entitled Principia, partly responsible for making him one of the most admired and famous scientists of all time.

Law of gravity:

<math>F = GMm/r2</math>

This law shows how the force between any two objects (you and your laptop for instance) varies with the distance squared between the two objects.

Newton also developed the mathematical domain of Calculus: the study of rates of change. Calculus is essential to our understanding of technology around us from how electricity works to how your cell phone communicates and to the dynamics of speeding bullets and cars. Newton took around 33 years to publish this after developing it which caused a bitter feud with another mathematician of the time who also had claimed to develop it.

Another famous physicist was [[Ernest Rutherford]] who kicked off the idea of our current model of the atom. The current model, advanced by Bohr and then polished by Schrödinger dictates that all positive charge in an [[atom]] is in its nucleus (along with neutrons) and orbited by negative charge (electrons) in much the same way as planets orbit a star. In fact, to a certain extent, Newtonian dynamics can be used to describe the motion of the electron on its path around the nucleus.

Understanding the laws of physics has been the academic pursuit of many world-changing people, including the ones listed below.

Applied physicists and engineers using the laws of physics have helped develop countless technological advancements that make our world as comfortable to live in as it is today.

Many physicists and mathematicians of recent times are [[atheist]], however this should not put you off the subject. Physics and astrophysics are the key to understanding the universe and how everything inside it operates whether God exists or not.

Other famous physicists include [[Aristotle]], [[Tycho Brahe]], [[Johannes Kepler]], [[Carl Gauss]], [[Isaac Newton]], [[James Maxwell]], [[Erwin Schroedinger]], [[Ernest Rutherford]], [[Werner Heisenberg]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[J. Robert Oppenheimer]], [[Enrico Fermi]], [[Richard Feynman]], [[Joseph Taylor]], [[Lyman Page]], [[Leon Cooper]], and [[James Valles, Jr.]]

[[Category:Physics| ]]

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-01T23:31:08Z

Sm355:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Pseudoscience

2007-04-16T21:46:01Z

Sm355: /* Examples of Pseudosciences */

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation presented as science without providing evidence or any sort of explanation which can be checked.

For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he can't do it in front of scientists or journalists.

==Examples of Pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Intelligent Design]]
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Eugenics]]
*[[Exotheology]]

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Hippopotamus

2007-04-10T20:33:07Z

Sm355: /* Reproduction */

The '''Hippopotamus''' or '''River Horse''' is a large African mammal that eats mostly plants. Once living in northern Africa, the hippopotamus is now only found south of the Sahara. The hippopotamus may have been the [[behemoth]] mentioned in Job 40:15-24. The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the only living species, a small number of extinct species are also known from fossils.

[[Image:hippo.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]

==Description==

Hippopotamuses may weigh up to 7000 pounds and reach 5 feet in height. They live in schools and submerge themselves in rivers to protect themselves from the sun, coming up for air every 5 minutes or so.

===Diet===

A hippopotamus is a [[herbivore]], eating up to 150 pounds of grass in a night. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion. Hippos have been known to attack crocodiles and humans. More people die from hippo attacks than from [[lion]]s.{{fact}}

===Reproduction===

Hippos are born underwater and have to swim to the surface to breath. While young hippopotamuses can float, when they get older they sink and must bounce along the bottom of the river.{{fact}}

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Hippopotamus

2007-04-10T20:32:47Z

Sm355: /* Diet */

The '''Hippopotamus''' or '''River Horse''' is a large African mammal that eats mostly plants. Once living in northern Africa, the hippopotamus is now only found south of the Sahara. The hippopotamus may have been the [[behemoth]] mentioned in Job 40:15-24. The hippopotamus and pygmy hippopotamus are the only living species, a small number of extinct species are also known from fossils.

[[Image:hippo.jpg|thumb|right|200px]]

==Description==

Hippopotamuses may weigh up to 7000 pounds and reach 5 feet in height. They live in schools and submerge themselves in rivers to protect themselves from the sun, coming up for air every 5 minutes or so.

===Diet===

A hippopotamus is a [[herbivore]], eating up to 150 pounds of grass in a night. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion. Hippos have been known to attack crocodiles and humans. More people die from hippo attacks than from [[lion]]s.{{fact}}

===Reproduction===

Hippos are born underwater and have to swim to the surface to breath. While young hippopotamuses can float, when they get older they sink and must bounce along the bottom of the river.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-03-31T22:51:07Z

Sm355: /* No */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

==No==
Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-03-31T22:50:47Z

Sm355: /* No */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

==No==
Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.

Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Feminazi

2007-03-30T21:49:11Z

Sm355:

This term is out of context, and was defined too soon. Sorry.

It can't be understood without reference to [[traditional family values]] - which is still undefined as of this date. I'm also not convinced we have an adequate [[Feminism]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

The 1st reference is very questionable as a source. It is basically some ones opinion on a message board who doesn't use any original sources to back up their statement. This should be removed until a better source can be found.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:49, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Frog

2007-03-30T17:23:42Z

Sm355:

The '''frog''' is a marine{{fact}} [[amphibian]]. Frogs have often been the subject of scientific experiment, whether in high school [[science]] class [[vivisection|dissections]] or [[Voltaire's]] 1766 experiments, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs.{{fact}}

The discovery that a frog's leg will kick if an electrical shock is applied to it was the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors' offices.{{fact}}

[[Category:Amphibians]]

Frog

2007-03-30T17:18:31Z

Sm355:

The '''frog''' is a marine{{fact}} [[amphibian]. Frogs have often been the subject of scientific experiment, whether in high school [[science]] class [[vivisection|dissections]] or [[Voltaire's]] 1766 experiments, in which he discovered that frogs hear with their legs.{{fact}}

The discovery that a frog's leg will kick if an electrical shock is applied to it was the scientific basis behind the reflex tests now common in doctors' offices.{{fact}}

[[Category:Amphibians]]

Creation science

2007-03-30T13:15:12Z

Sm355:

{{stub}}

'''Creation science''' is an effort to show that scientific evidence is consistent with the account of Creation in the Bible - usually with a literal six-day-creation interpretation - and not with the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]]. Creation science is not accepted by most scientists. However, this could be due partly to the religious views of the scientists, rather than scientific evidences{{fact}}. A poll among United States scientists showed approximately 45% of scientists believed there was no God.[http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html] In addition, a survey found that 93% of the scientists who were members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God. [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html]

This is clear evidence of the way the educational system is biased against the teaching of Christianity.

Speed of light

2007-03-20T21:51:14Z

Sm355: I

The speed of light in a vacuum (which is constant for all observers: see the [[Theory of Relativity|theory of relativity]]) is, to nine significant figures, exactly 299,792,458 metres per second (approximately 1,079,252,848 km/h). As the speed of light is used to define the [[SI]] metre, this is the value ''by definition''.

The speed of light is slower in any medium which is not a vacuum, and varies from medium to medium. This variation gives rise to (as a result of [[quantum mechanics]], particularly the concept of a path of least action) the phenomenon of [[refraction]].

Since the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, it can be used to define distances as well. The distance that light travels in one year is know as a [[light-year]], which is about 6 million million (6x1012) miles. For instance, the nearest large galaxy to our own [[Milky Way Galaxy]] is the [[Andromeda Galaxy]], which astronomers have measured to be about 2.5 million light years away.

The speed of light raises several questions for Young Earth Creationists including that of the [[starlight problem]].

Dinosaur

2007-03-20T20:35:47Z

Sm355:

The word '''dinosaur''' was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen<ref>http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/about.htm</ref>, from the [[Greek]] for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large [[reptiles]] that previously lived in abundance on Earth.

==Creationist Scientists Perspective==
Creationist scientists believe that dinosaurs and man coexisted which they claim is based on a number of pieces of evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dinosaurs.asp</ref>
They reject the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

They also reject the "Great Impact Theory" that a meteor struck the earth and caused climatic changes which caused the extinction of dinosaurs and claim there are multiple problems evidentially with this theory. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/dino_meteor.asp</ref>

Creationist scientists also contend that birds being descendants of dinosaurs is unreasonable and is also is not scientifically supported with any evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter4.asp</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/planes.asp</ref>

In addition, creationists cite the current online World Book Encyclopedia which states:

"No fossil of any such birdlike reptile has yet been found." <ref>http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes</ref><ref>http://www.worldbookonline.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/dinosaurs/creatures_birds</ref>

Creationist scientists Dr. [[Jonathon Safarti]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of bird the following:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[Bird|bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
</blockquote>

Creationists also cite the evolutionist [[Ernst Mayr]] who in 1942 stated the following:

“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html</ref>

Creationist scientists also cite the March 2003 issue of Scientific American which stated:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
"Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers'''...." <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp</ref><ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF</ref>
</blockquote>

===Humans and Dinosaurs Coexisting===
There are a number of lines of evidence that point to dinosaurs and man coexisting. For example, explorers have reported seeing a live dinosaur.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp</ref> An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which is claimed to portray dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm</ref><ref> http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving</ref>. The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology." <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html</ref> The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. <ref>http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html</ref> Creationist scientist also see the recent dinosaur soft tissue find a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp</ref>

Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster

An alternate theory for the inclusion of dinosaurs within many cultures is the existence of fossils. Ancient people, unaware that the ancient fossils uncovered by erosion were of extinct animals, attributed the bones to living, magical creatures. This would explain the importance of dragons in Chinese culture - there are a large number of dinosaur (as well as non-dinosaur) fossils to be found in China <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH712.html</ref>.

===Dinosaurs and Creationism===

Some [[Christian|Christians]] reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the current science community consensus of the age of the earth. Of those Christians who reject evolution, the [[Creationism | Young Earth Creationists]] believe, based primarily on Biblical [[sources]], but also drawing on [[archeological]] and fossil evidence, that dinosaurs were created on the 6th day of the [[Creation Week]]<ref>''Genesis'', 1:25</ref> as a final addendum to the wonders God created, approximately 6,000 years ago; that they lived in the [[Garden of Eden]] in harmony with other animals, eating only plants<ref>''Genesis'' 1:29-30</ref>; that pairs of various dinosaurs were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp "Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?"], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>; that fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i1/dinosaurbones.asp "Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?"], ''Creation'' 21(1):54–55, December 1998</ref>; and that some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark still roam the earth today.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp "Are dinosaurs alive today?"], ''Creation'' 15(4):12–15, September 1993</ref>

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] obviously does not use the word "dinosaur." However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the '''behemoth''' in [[Job]] and the '''leviathan''' in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp "Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?"], ''TJ'' 15(2):42–45, August 2001</ref> <ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm</ref>, although some reject this view, saying that behemoth was a hippopotamus and leviathan was a crocodile. There is a problem with this view, however, such as the fact that a hippo doesn't have a "tail like a cedar" and a crocodile does not accurately match the description of leviathan.

==Dinosaurs through Science==
What follow are the perspectives on dinosaurs accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, through use of the [[scientific method]], and taught at the United States' major research universities. Following any of the references in this section will lead to scientific treatment of the issue discussed.

===Extinction===

Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what we call the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find, based on strong geological evidence, that the K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028</ref> The dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html</ref> Evidence of the dust that caused this long winter is still visible, though, as a line of metal of extraterrestrial origin is often visible in sediment worldwide, occurring as a result of the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> The crater is also visible.<ref>National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html</ref>

===Cambrian Life Explosion===
The extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. What we now know as [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770</ref>

===Dinosaurs and Birds===

As a number of feathered dinosaur fossils have been discovered, and the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs, scientists contend that modern birds are a descendant of dinosaurs. This is cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>National Geographic, "New Dinosaur Discovered: T-Rex Cousin Had Feathers," http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html</ref>

===Dinosaur Speciation===
Dinosaur species were immensely varied, from herbivores to carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast genus that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>National Geographic, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Science]]

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-20T16:38:50Z

Sm355: /* Absurd */

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This old one... its supposed to be a paradox showing the omnipotence is impossible: If God can create the rock, He must not be all-powerful because He cannot lift it. If He cant create the rock, then He still isn't all powerful. Either way, no all-powerful being. Personally, I think God just has no reason to create such a rock, so why would He? - BornAgainBrit

Because he wants to disprove his own existence. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

But you can't assume that God is temporally limited like us mere mortals. He can create the rock so heavy he can't lift it one minute, then, the next minute, he lifts it. Just because we can't conceive of it, doesn't mean God can't lift it. -mittromney

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:He'd get YOU to lift it. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Absurd ==

This question is absurd and this revolves around the question of what omnipotence is. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything" then you hit this problem. If you use the definition of "omnipotence is the ability to do anything that may be done" then the problem does not exist.

Lets take an alternative form of this argument:
# If God is omnipotent, then God can create a square circle
# God cannot create a square circle
# Therefore, God is not omnipotent

This is of the form
#p -> q
#~q
#therefore ~p
which is a valid argument form known as modus tollens. To attack this argument it is necessary to look at the premises. The second premise is fair so the first must be examined. This can be broken down into:
##God is omnipotent
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle

Theistic scholar/philosophers do not claim the omnipotence of God, but rather that God is the maximally powerful being. That God can do anything that can be done. With the modified argument:
##God the maximally powerful being
##Therefore God can create or do anything
##A square circle is a thing
##Therefore God can create a square circle
It falls apart and the first premise of the argument fails. Ultimately, this does not limit God's power - He can do anything that can be done and create anything that can exist.

This can then be summed up in:
* God is the maximally powerful being.
* That which cannot exist, cannot be created.
There is no paradox here, and any claim otherwise rests on absurdity.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

So - god is too weak to create a squared circle. I get that - but what about the rock?

"Any claim otherwise rests on absurdity"? You seem fairly confident that by using a lot of logical jargon and organizing your post in a way that intimates you know what you're talking about, you can circumvent the inherent logical fallacy that you're assuming you can conceptualize what can exist and what can be created. If you claim to know what can and what cannot be created, such as, for example, a rock that God can't lift, shouldn't that be in the entry for hubris? -mittromney
: I am simply stating the solution to the paradox of omnipotence that was given back as an answer in one of the religious studies classes I took at a Catholic highschool and again in a university class on "Philosophy and Religion." At best, the paradox of omnipotence is a strawman argument. [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/impossiblerock.html] [http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/omnipotence.html] [http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Omnipotence_Paradox] [http://www.greatplay.net/uselessia/articles/omnipyparadox.html] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox] Thomas Aquinas said it well "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the center to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles." - granted this is founded on euclidean space, but it goes back to the question of can God break the laws of the universe that He created. Alternatively, you can go to Augustine of Hippo and read "For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.V.10.html] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Isn't the fact that your quote from Aquinas included a notion that was later proved to be totally incorrect by Einstein absolutely damning for your argument that humans can adequately perceive and evaluate logical concepts? I guess I'm curious how any of what you say deals properly with the idea that God is totally superior in every way, and therefore to say He can or can't do something is pointless hubris a fortiori? -mittromney
: It depends if you take it literally or what he was trying to say. The question is can God do something that is against the rules of logic? If you don't like the triangle example that Aquinas gave, then use four sided triangles or square circles in place of them. Read the first sentence again and you will see that these are perfectly valid substitutions - "Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::So you're saying that we should just choose a new facially contradictory idea, and go ahead with that, while my whole point was that we're totally incapable of evaluating what's consistent and what's contradictory? I'm not sure how choosing new examples of things we assume to be not true helps you at all... -mittromney
::: You are suggesting that Aquinas is proven wrong because he used a definition of a triangle that only worked in euclidean space. This false-paradox is a straw man for an atheistic world view that is based on a particular definition of omnipotence - it is just as bad as creationists giving straw man arguments that are counter evolution (do note, I am not a creationist). If you wish to argue that a logical impossibility is not beyond omnipotence, then you can work from the Cartesian viewpoint of the trickster god or demon that allows 2+2=5, though that is more a question of belief and knowledge than omnipotence. If you wish to argue about omnipotence with a theistic philosopher, then it is necessary to work from that definition of omnipotence. I am presenting that definition and showing how the rest of the question falls to absurdity when this definition is used - which does not limit omnipotence. Simply said, God can do anything that can be done. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, I don't think you properly respond to what I'm saying. I claim the idea of a logical impossibility is a hobgoblin of mediocre minds: We have no idea what's logically possible or impossible. To say we do, and subsequently to claim that somehow human logic limits the omnipotence of god, is foolhardy. What I was suggesting with your Aquinas example is that things which may at one point in time appear to be facially and obviously contradictory can, in the future, be shown to actually be possible, and the original belief was therefore just an incorrect human assumption and not "logic". How that argument is a false-paradox straw man is beyond me: It appears you just throw those terms around to try to demonstrate that you're familiar with logical jargon in the hopes that the other side will assume you know better than they do. When you argue through implicit authority (not to even bring up the Descartes reference), you sound like a liberal who belongs at wiki... -mittromney
: I would urge you to ask your priest or minister the question of the rock so heavy. You will likely get a similar answer to mine (and that of Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo). Omnipotence is a human definition with words that are constrained by our language. Head to the seminary and you will find half a dozen different definitions of omnipotence and various theologians arguing for and against each one being the correct interpretation of the word. You will even find Judaism (which also asserts the omnipotent God) claims that God works through persuasion rather than action - the creation of possibility rather than miracles or violations of natural law - that His omnipotence is shown through that means. Other branches of Christianity use "God cannot make you sin" as part of its philosophy, that if God was to make you sin then you would not have free will and thus would not be sinning. The only reason to pose the paradox of omnipotence is to try to assert that God does not have such power. My take on it (and I agree with those sources I have linked above) is that the proper definition of omnipotence is "to have any power that can be had" or to be the maximally powerful being and as such the question of the rock or a square circle or a four sided triangle becomes a silly question - that which cannot exist cannot be created. If you wish to assert a different definition and solution to this question, then by all means do so. However, I have not seen any reasonable argument against this position from you yet. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
----

Can God predict the future? [[User:kchittur|kchittur]]

How heavy do you think the rock that god can't lift would be? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 18:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe 1*10^abs(1/0) kg.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shhhhh, you supposed to use lbs.! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Guys, you are debating the wrong question which is really only a red herring. The real question that each must answer is this: "Will a man become so filled with pride and enamored with thoughts of his own intellectual superiority as to use a silly logical argument as an excuse to close his mind and his heart to the truth of the Gospel and thus reject his only hope of salvation?" --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 10:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Or perhaps the real question is, "Why do so many people blindly follow religious stories and texts with nothing to go on but faith with out any facts?". But that's another question for another debate. Lets just stick to the original question.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Heavy metal music

2007-03-20T14:02:30Z

Sm355: citeation needed

Heavy Metal was developed around 1969 and 1974 from Blues Rock, Classical music, and apparently Satan - according to many Christians and conservatives. The aural aspects of metal generally revolve around highly-amplified guitar distortion and fast guitar solos. Metal has a large amount of fans, few of whom advocate Christianity in any form.{{fact}}

Subgenres include Black Metal, Death Metal, Thrash (or Speed) Metal, New Wave Of British Heavy Metal, Doom Metal, Folk (or Viking) Metal, Power Metal, Progressive (or Avant-Garde) Metal, and Gothic Metal.

Talk:Terrorist jesus

2007-03-20T01:09:02Z

Sm355:

Does Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth hold exclusive rights to the name Jesus? Isn't the name Jesus a common name in South America? If so then this might not be in reference to Jesus Christ.But it depends on the context of what was going to be put in this article.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, the context it was used in (and the horrible grammar and spelling) was not good. And a person named Jesus wouldn't have an article called "terrorist jesus", it would be the guy's real name. We don't call Osama "terrorist arab", now do we? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::No the analogue would be "terrorist Mohammed" if there was a terrorist called Mohammed.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Terrorist jesus

2007-03-20T01:04:02Z

Sm355: New page: Does Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth hold exclusive rights to the name Jesus? Isn't the name Jesus a common name in South America? If so then this might not be in reference to Jesus Chri...

Infinite regression

2007-03-20T00:58:30Z

Sm355:

An [[infinite regression]] is a proposed chain of causation in which each purported cause itself requires another event of exactly the same type to cause ''it.''

This raises the question of what set the original chain in motion--in short, what was the "first cause." Whether all things must have a "first cause" or not, is a subject of [[Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|debate]].

== An example ==
Many [[sciece|scientists]], observing the remarkable complexity of life (and especially of [[DNA]], the [[molecule]] that holds the complete instruction set for life), doubt strenuously that life could have originated on the earth out of non-life--a process called [[abiogenesis]]. [[Francis H. Crick]], the co-discoverer of [[DNA]], recognized this early and also is alleged to have recognized other conditions that abiogenesis would have required, that in all [[probability]] did not exist on earth. Crick did not believe that life was created by supernatural means, and therefore deduced that since life did ''not'' originate on earth, it was ''deposited'' on earth from outside.

How, then, did this happen? Most proponents of his outside-seeding of life, called [[panspermia]], suggest that the [[comet]]s contain the seeds of life within their tails, and the earth acquired these seeds by passing through a comet's tail. Dr. Crick and his colleague [[Leslie H. Orgel]] assumed something far more radical: that an advanced [[civilization]] built and launched a brace of intergalactic [[ballistic missile]]s, each laden with bacteria and blue-green algae, in all directions from their homeworld. One such missile crash-landed on earth, and all life on earth is the by-product of the payload of that missile.

But this begs one of two questions:

#Where did life originate, that it would then infiltrate multiple cometary tails?
#Did yet ''another'' advanced civilization fire the missile that provided the seed of life from which the ''most recent launch authority'' had its own origins?

Unless an eventual origin of life is proposed (on another planet or in space), then for each step, the observer must ''regress'' one age into the past. The problem is that he never stops regressing. ''An infinite regression cannot have an identifiable first cause.''
== Another Example: Who created the creator? ==

Another example of infinite regression is when one asserts that life must have been created, thus requiring a more complex creator. However, for this logic to hold, the creator is a life form which requires another life form to create it. This logic chain continues and causes an infinite regression. One method to stop this infinite regression is to assume that life does not need a creator. This argument is often used against the ideas of [[creationism]] and [[Intellegent Design]].<ref> Richard Dawkins. 2006. The God Delusion.</ref>.

== Classical illustrations of infinite regression ==
The oldest practical illustration of the concept of infinite regression requires the experimenter to erect two mirrors facing one another, and then to stand between them. He will see his own image looking back at him, and then the back of his own head, and then his face, and so on, an infinite number of times.

A more modern experiment requires a [[television]] camera and receiver. If one sends the signal from the camera to the receiver, and then ''aims the camera at the receiver,'' the receiver will show a picture of itself, holding a picture of itself, holding a picture of itself, holding a picture of itself, and so on to infinity.

== Debates ==
The subject of infinite regression--its validity, defensibility, and possible applicability to real-world situations--is being debated [[Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|here]]. [[Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Also being debated]] is the notion of a first cause, and whether or not it is always required.

== See also ==
* [[Logical fallacy]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Infinite regression

2007-03-20T00:57:44Z

Sm355:

Talk:Banana

2007-03-20T00:34:16Z

Sm355:

I thought that was a joke. --[[User:John|John]] 21:16, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

To my knowledge, bananas are so "well designed" because they were cultivated. --[[User:John|John]] 21:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:So God must have not wanted us to eat coconuts then because they are so difficult to open.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== commandments ==

Please be mindful of commandments 1 and 6 and consider an edit here. I do not doubt the truth and verifiablility of the statement that some see the banana's perfection as evidence...etc, however the phrase itself would be stronger if some evidence of the hand of the Creator were given. For example, it would be nice to include an explanation or link here as to how the pleasingness of a banana points directly to the Creator rather than to a Creator-driven evolutionary process, or a godless process. Also, the perfection of the banana should be defined. What makes a banana more perfect than, say, a turnip?

The entry appears to be an entire violation of Commandment 6, so I'd love to see the re-edited version.
Thanks for your time.
:You're taking this too seriously [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 19:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-20T00:14:31Z

Sm355:

All the talk of global Warming is absolutely mind numbing. Out of nowhere, this science is out to scare us all. The fact remains, the Global Warming scientists believe that humans must take the necessary steps to avoid a meltdown. It is ignorant to think humans can save the planet. God created this world, God alone can save this world from ourselves. Plus, do these scientists understand the ramifications of their sales pitch? The people of Earth would have to give up eveything in order to succeed. By everything I mean combustion engines, factories, electricity, all meat, dairy, etc.

:That last comment is either supposed to be ironic, or from a very uninformed fundamentalist. I can't tell which.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 20:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming

2007-03-20T00:14:03Z

Sm355:

Talk:Thor

2007-03-19T23:00:09Z

Sm355: New page: "These old stories" Is this the same terminology that would be used to describe the bible?--~~~~

"These old stories"

Is this the same terminology that would be used to describe the bible?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-19T22:49:59Z

Sm355: /* Absurd */

Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?

2007-03-19T22:08:29Z

Sm355: New page: Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it? Discuss--~~~~

Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?
Discuss--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-03-19T22:08:23Z

Sm355: Added new debate

Debate topic suggestions:
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea]] as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are regulations by the government to keep private businesses in check necessary?|Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?|Should President Jimmy Carter (at the urging of Henry Kissinger) have allowed the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States in 1979 to receive medical treatment, over the objections of the Iranian people?]]
# [[Henry Ford]] said, "I don't know much about history, and I wouldn't give a nickel for all the history in the world. History is more or less bunk. It is tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's [darn] is the history we make today." [[George Santayana]] said "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." [[Conservapedia:Which was closer to being right?|Which was closer to being right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?|Were the Puritans right to banish (expel) people for religious reasons?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?|Does the high abortion rate among African Americans explain the quadruple extreme premature birth risk among the same population?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the third crusade successful?|Was the third crusade successful?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?|Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?|Is it possible to be both Jewish and Christian at the same time?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?|Should the USA and other industrialized nations resume the building of nuclear power plants, an activity that is now effectively suspended?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Pope the Antichrist?|Is the Pope the Antichrist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?|Do hardly any entries on conservapedia cite sources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus was alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Is religion relevant in todays society?|Is religion relevant in todays society?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Corinthians 11:14 and the traditional image of Jesus]]
# [[Conservapedia:A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format|A poll requested by Aschlafly regarding the new color format]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia Discussions|Reference quality]]
# [[Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]

Feel free to add additional debate topics

Debate:Why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?

2007-03-19T21:07:48Z

Sm355: /* Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time */

==Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time==

*The phrase "perpetual motion" is old-fashioned language. It does not mean simply something that stays in motion forever. This might be theoretically possible—it at least does not violate conservation of energy. But the phrase "perpetual motion" uses "motion" in an older sense to mean motor or engine, and it means something that can deliver energy—to run an automobile, for example—without requiring any external source of energy, such as gasoline. It means something for nothing.

:'''COUNTER:''' By "perpetual motion machine" I mean simply what the term says: remain in motion perpetually. I'm not proposing running "something for nothing," which is obviously impossible. I'm proposing running something indefinitely, like the clock you describe. Why is that impossible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 31 December 2006 (EST)

::I don't think it '''is''' impossible. I don't understand enough about the entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be absolutely sure. And the Clock of the Long Now isn't expected to run forwever, just for ten thousand years.

:::By the definition of 'perpetually moving' it is indeed possible: the simple hydrogen atom becomes a working prototype. But the term is generally used to describe a machine that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics: in any closed system useful energy will dissipate. Indeed any engine more efficient than a Carnot Engine is by definition a perpetual motion machine [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html (Carnot Cycle)]. [[User:Airor|Airor]] 22 Feb 2007 2:22PM PST

::The "perpetual motion machines" or ''perpetuum mobiles''—the gadgets that the patent office refuses to review—all were intended to generate energy from nothing. They got to be a problem because inventors were constantly claiming to have found it and lining up investors. Often there was deliberate fraud, but sometimes there was just innocent ignorance involved. Usually there was either a hidden source of energy (e.g. in frauds, like the Keeley Motor) or the inventor believe he was producing energy when he was just releasing stored energy.

*For an interesting example of an attempt to build a machine that will stay in motion for a long time, see [http://www.longnow.org/projects/clock/ The Clock of the Long Now]. This is a serious effort to encourage long-term thinking by solving the engineering ''and social'' problems involved in building a clock will actually run for ten thousand years.

*It is not impossible becuase The Lord could make a perpetual motion device if he so wished it. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:*Hum... Could he also create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Why is a perpetual motion machine impossible?

2007-03-19T21:07:25Z

Sm355: /* Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time */

==Machines that simply "move" forever, or a very long time==

*The phrase "perpetual motion" is old-fashioned language. It does not mean simply something that stays in motion forever. This might be theoretically possible—it at least does not violate conservation of energy. But the phrase "perpetual motion" uses "motion" in an older sense to mean motor or engine, and it means something that can deliver energy—to run an automobile, for example—without requiring any external source of energy, such as gasoline. It means something for nothing.

:'''COUNTER:''' By "perpetual motion machine" I mean simply what the term says: remain in motion perpetually. I'm not proposing running "something for nothing," which is obviously impossible. I'm proposing running something indefinitely, like the clock you describe. Why is that impossible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:48, 31 December 2006 (EST)

::I don't think it '''is''' impossible. I don't understand enough about the entropy and the second law of thermodynamics to be absolutely sure. And the Clock of the Long Now isn't expected to run forwever, just for ten thousand years.

:::By the definition of 'perpetually moving' it is indeed possible: the simple hydrogen atom becomes a working prototype. But the term is generally used to describe a machine that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics: in any closed system useful energy will dissipate. Indeed any engine more efficient than a Carnot Engine is by definition a perpetual motion machine [http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html (Carnot Cycle)]. [[User:Airor|Airor]] 22 Feb 2007 2:22PM PST

::The "perpetual motion machines" or ''perpetuum mobiles''—the gadgets that the patent office refuses to review—all were intended to generate energy from nothing. They got to be a problem because inventors were constantly claiming to have found it and lining up investors. Often there was deliberate fraud, but sometimes there was just innocent ignorance involved. Usually there was either a hidden source of energy (e.g. in frauds, like the Keeley Motor) or the inventor believe he was producing energy when he was just releasing stored energy.

*For an interesting example of an attempt to build a machine that will stay in motion for a long time, see [http://www.longnow.org/projects/clock/ The Clock of the Long Now]. This is a serious effort to encourage long-term thinking by solving the engineering ''and social'' problems involved in building a clock will actually run for ten thousand years.

*It is not impossible becuase The Lord could make a perpetual motion device if he so wished it. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 00:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hum... Could he also create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:07, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Scotland

2007-03-19T19:35:33Z

Sm355: No guess work

Scotland is a country in the [[United Kingdom]]. Scotland is famous for kilts, haggis and the possible existence of the Loch Ness monster. The symbol of Scotland is the thistle.

Talk:Physics

2007-03-19T19:30:24Z

Sm355:

:''Physics is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of God's universe''

God in this context is completely irrelevant. If this is the case, we should also have God's Ball, God's incline,God's Scientists, God's Galileo. Having "the" instead of "God's" universe is less biased (aren't we trying to reduce bias). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, it's implied through the rest of the article. It's not irrelevant because God created it, He deserves the the credit. We are privileged to be able to study and figure out different aspects of His creation. That's what science is, the study of God's creation. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sigh. It is still not proven that God did create the Universe (The Bible does not count as proof). Its just as likely and provable that Xenu, Min, Ra, Thor, Mars, Vishnu or any other God you would care to think of created the Universe. So in an article about rocks for example, should we include the statement "God's Rocks" at the start of the article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:20, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Even if they did, this is a Christian site, so one wouldn't put those anyways. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:23, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I have to agree with Sm355 about this. The articles whould be factual in every possible way to make this site a credible source for information. Because it is still unproven that the Christian god created the universe, the word "the" fits much better into the article. Also, for a good portion of the purposes this article might be used for, the word "God's" would be an unacceptable term(I'm talking about schools, etc.).[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]21:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I disagree, obviously. The Bible does count as proof. Take the ''Messianic prophesies of Christ'' as just one example. That right there proves that God spoke to us humans through the Bible, and that the Bible is an accurate account of history. That would also imply that the Christian God created everything, and thus He deserves the credit. "the" couldn't fit less with the article. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 21:35, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Shouldn't the definition have a source, anyways? Here's a good list of possible sources for definitions: [http://www.onelook.com/?w=physics&ls=a]. I'll leave it up to y'all to find the one best suited. I am no physicist. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Good idea. Genesis 1:1. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 01:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not you believe it is "God's universe" or not has NO effect whatsover on the actual science of physics. Which, btw, is almost completely lacking from this article. And the Book of Genesis does not count as a reference for a scientific statement.
:Actually, on this site the bible is a reliable source for... anything. But... where in Genesis is "Physics" mentioned? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 05:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::And, conversely, when was the last time you read a physics paper which referred to "God's Universe?" It's not a term of art in the field. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Snowdonia

2007-03-19T18:09:45Z

Sm355:

Snowdonia is a mountainous region of North Wales in the [[Great Britain|UK]]. It is named after [[Lord Snowdon]], who first discovered it in the 12th century.[cite reference]

Snowdonia

2007-03-19T18:08:24Z

Sm355:

Snowdonia is a mountainous region of North Wales in the [[Great Britain|UK]]. It is named after [[Lord Snowdon]], who first discovered it in the 12th century.

Mercury

2007-03-19T17:59:14Z

Sm355:

Mercury is the smallest planet in the Solar System, and it is the closest to the [[Sun]]. It orbits the [[Sun]] in 88 days. It can be seen from [[Earth]] only at sunrise and sunset. It is named for the Roman messenger god who was known as [[Hermes]] in Greek.

It was the study of this planet's orbit that [[Albert Einstein]] used to help confirm the theory of General Relativity.[cite reference]

Mercury is also an element, number 80 in the periodic table. It is the only metal that is commonly found in liquid form.

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Mercury

2007-03-19T17:58:16Z

Sm355:

Mercury is the smallest planet in the Solar System, and it is the closest to the [[Sun]]. It orbits the [[Sun]] in 88 days. It can be seen from [[Earth]] only at sunrise and sunset. It is named for the Roman messenger god who was known as [[Hermes]] in Greek.

It was the study of this planet's orbit that [[Albert Einstein]] used to help confirm the theory of General Relativity.{fact}

Mercury is also an element, number 80 in the periodic table. It is the only metal that is commonly found in liquid form.

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Fibonacci sequence

2007-03-19T17:30:55Z

Sm355:

The "example" of a Fibonacci Sequence in the Tool lyrics is clearly erroneous. The numbers simply don't add up. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 21:57, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I have to wonder if this example of lyrics is especially interesting or useful in this context. I also wonder if "Bill" is a member of the band whose lyrics he cites. Also, some further explanation of the honeybee example would be nice. I have a math degree, and the link from this example to the topic is plausible but far from obvious. --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 22:31, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think it is based on the number of syllables and not on the word count for each line. But then they seem to have split the lines up so that it works; when in fact it is just one sentence. I don't think it should be in this article, there are far more important things to add such as the general equation for the sequence. This could perhaps belong in a trivia section if it is verified.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 13:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Honeybees ==

The example of honeybees is not entirely accurate in that it refers to the mated queen as always producing female offspring. The differentiation that occurs is a result of whether or not the individual egg is fertilized, the point being that a fertile queen is entirely capable of laying an unfertilized egg. This is most remarkable in that it indicates that the queen has some control over each egg that is layed with regard to its fertilization. The egg that will result in a drone must be deposited in a cell that is slightly larger than the standard honeycomb cell to allow for the male bee being larger than its sisters. It also means that the queen, having mated for a only a brief period of time during her mating flight, has the means to maintain the viability of the sperm over the span of her life, which can be as long as 5 years. Furthermore, the fertilized eggs don't really produce female offspring in the true sense of the word. The worker bees that are the result of these eggs are really underdeveloped females that are not capable of becoming fertile. They can, however, lay eggs in special circumstances of high stress that occur should the colony become queenless. These eggs can only become drones though, and the colony is doomed. In order to produce a new queen, the worker bees must have access to a fertilized egg that has been layed by a viable queen, or a lavae that is no more than a day or two old. They then can feed a young larvae a special food they produce, called "royal jelly" that causes the larvae to develop into a queen bee.

OK, glad to know all this, but the Fibonacci connection is...? --[[User:Abell|Abell]] 16:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Gravitation

2007-03-19T17:02:43Z

Sm355:

'''Gravitation''' is a phenomenon which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern physics, it is explained by the [[general theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Issac Newton | Issac Newton's]] [[law of universal gravitation]], which is still useful in most situations.

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[earth]] and [[sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Evil

2007-03-19T16:59:12Z

Sm355: Removing Bias

'''Evil''' is defined as taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit. It is the opposite of [[goodness]].
[[Murder]], [[rape]], worshiping a false god<ref>Judges 2:11</ref><ref>Judges 10:6</ref>, and [[blasphemy]]<ref>Leviticus 24:16</ref><ref>Mark 3:29</ref> are examples of objective evil.

According to Christian beliefs, Evil entered the world when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil<ref>Genesis 3:6-7</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

Evil

2007-03-19T16:45:13Z

Sm355: Irrelevant to this subject

Evil is the objective lack of goodness against one's fellow humans. [[Murder]], [[rape]], worshiping a false god<ref>Judges 2:11</ref><ref>Judges 10:6</ref>, and [[blasphemy]]<ref>Leviticus 24:16</ref><ref>Mark 3:29</ref> are examples of objective evil.

Evil entered the world when Eve ate the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil<ref>Genesis 3:6-7</ref>.

== References ==
<references />

Physics

2007-03-19T16:37:55Z

Sm355: As per the 1st commandment of this website " Everything you post must be true and verifiable. " Since God is not verifiable, it must be removed.

{{stub}}
'''Physics''' is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of the universe. [[Galileo]] was the first to discover and propose some of the fundamental laws of physics that we still realize today. He began by studying how a ball will roll down and incline and showed that it's speed would be proportional to the hight it started at. A scientist that studies ''physics'' is called a [[physicist]].

[[Category:Physics| ]]

Moon

2007-03-19T12:18:38Z

Sm355: Removed an opinion. Opinions do not count as encycolpedic content.

The '''Moon''' orbits the [[Earth]]. Unlike most planets, Earth has only one moon and it has several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design:

1. Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the [[Sun]] when viewed from Earth. This creates a beautiful symmetry and permits phenomenal eclipses to occur. The odds of that symmetry occurring by chance are very small. That symmetry will not last forever. {{fact}}

2. The Moon presents the same side to Earth at all times, even though the Moon revolves around the Earth. That requires the rotation of the Moon to be timed precisely to offset the separate effects of the revolution around Earth. This has an awesome artistic or design effect without any plausible physical reason. {{fact}}

Skeptics sought to explain this remarkable phenomenon by saying that tidal forces on Earth caused a bulge on the Moon, thereby locking in the rotation of the Moon so that its same face always presents to the Earth. They asserted that the planet [[Mercury]] has a similar locked rotation due to gravitational forces from the sun, such that the same side of Mercury always faces the sun. {{fact}}

But this explanation was ultimately proven wrong.<ref>http://physics.fortlewis.edu/Astronomy/astronomy%20today/CHAISSON/AT308/HTML/AT30803.HTM</ref>
Mercury does not always present the same face to the sun as claimed, and instead switches the side that it presents to the sun every full revolution. As to the Moon, the tidal forces on the Earth cannot account fully for its bulge or egg shape. The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject [[Intelligent Design]].

3. The Moon's surface lacks the abundant [[iron]] that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth. This deficiency of iron on the Moon disproved the primary theory that the Moon must have originated by breaking off from the Earth. There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time. {{fact}}

4. The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year, the Moon's present distance of about 250,000 miles implies a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years. Under the non-creationist claim that the Moon somehow broke away from the Earth, the Moon's rate of recession must have been faster in the past, and thus the Moon would have been only 150,000 miles from the Earth far more recently than one billion years ago. This contradicts the claim of non-creationists that the Moon and Earth are somehow several billions of years old. {{fact}}

5. Our solar system is one of the few that has only one star.{{fact}}

== See also ==
*[[Moon Theories]]

== Notes and References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Physics

2007-03-19T01:20:57Z

Sm355:

Talk:Physics

2007-03-19T01:11:33Z

Sm355: New page: ''Physics is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of God's universe'' God in this context is completely irrelevant. If this is the case, we should also have God's ...

''Physics is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of God's universe''

God in this context is completely irrelevant. If this is the case, we should also have God's Ball, God's incline,God's Scientists, God's Galileo. Having "the" instead of "God's" universe is less biased (aren't we trying to reduce bias). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 21:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Physics

2007-03-19T01:04:00Z

Sm355: Why not Xenu instead then? Prove that he does not exist!

{{stub}}
'''Physics''' is the study of nature, and is the science of studying the laws of Xenu's universe. [[Galileo]] was the first to discover and propose some of the fundamental laws of physics that we still realize today. He began by studying how a ball will roll down and incline and showed that it's speed would be proportional to the hight it started at. A scientist that studies ''physics'' is called a [[physicist]].

Physics

2007-03-19T00:59:42Z

Sm355:

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-03-18T21:21:03Z

Sm355: /* Protected */

This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself (in the same way that fire can). --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we mean NOW? ==
I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "'''are''' actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, well. I've seen the conservapedia article before, but I hadn't clicked the link you provided. It's hard to make a reasoned intelligent response really. There's so little connection to reality. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:25, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex

2007-03-18T19:25:40Z

Sm355: /* Protected */

This article is in desperate need of more references. --[[User:BillOReillyFan|BillOReillyFan]] 13:50, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Again, should be titled Tyrannosaurus '''REX'''--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually it is ''Tyrannosaurus rex''. The genus name is capitalized the species name is not. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::When I posted that the article was just entitled Tyrannasaurus, with no rex at the end. I changed it to capital just for the title convention of having words capitalized.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Reverts? ==

Why can't we include the creationist view on T. Rex? My edits keep getting reverted.
:Write your edit here to see what's wrong and cite all sources. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:02, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Can't we have some images of a t-rex eating people in a natural history museum? I think that would be a major improvement. (ha ha) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is brilliant! Don't change a thing!--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 16:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected==

I protected this version because it did not lack citations and gave the most information. Please discuss what should and should not remain. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:One citation repeated three times is not equal to three citations. Try looking at this, careful it has '''bigwords''' in it. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3790/is_200103/ai_n8932547| Gut contents from a cretaceous tyrannosaurid.] --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:21, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add more citations, but they kept getting deleted! Here's a great one: [http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-or-scavenger.html SCAVENGER!]--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:This article is complete and utter nonsense. One line explains what it is, the rest is devoted to arguments for creationism. Can it be unlocked so that real facts can be added to it instead of pure speculation and creationist propaganda.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The current article makes no sense. Please reopen so we can add factual information.[[User:ColemanFrancis|ColemanFrancis]] 17:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist propoganda? Noted Hadrosaur expert Jack Horner [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_%28paleontologist%29 Sorry this is the best thing I could find] thinks they were scavengers, not carnivores.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you understand the situation there, CF, they don't want "facts" they want '''"their facts"'''. And BTW, there CW, jackals are carnivores '''and''' scavengers. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:It actually doesn't say that Jack Horner believed they were scavengers, it says he revitalized the theory that they may have been, but it was never a major research focus for him. And even if he did believe it, that's still just one person. What do the majority of paleontologists think? Especially the ones who specialize in T-Rex. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:39, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Horner wrote several articles on the subject. Look it up.

Horner, J.R., (1994). Steak knives, beady eyes, and tiny little arms (a portrait of Tyrannosaurus as a scavenger). The Paleontological Society Special Publication 7: 157-164.

Stop speaking without knowing what your talking about.

And by the way, the jackel has strong front legs, reliable teeth and is fast, so it can be a predator.--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why not give those sources then? Instead of one which didn't support your argument at all? Either way, there's more paleontologists with other opinions. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes. This is true. The jackal can be a predator, that also scavenges. Do you think that "scavenger" and "herbivore" are synonyms? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The line "" Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals."" is pure speculation or an over active imagination. It is not a fact that can be verified. Besides that, crocodiles have existed since or before dinosaurs (I'm not an expert), which as we know are currently carnivores.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 17:45, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can you be sure of that? Stop adding ''your'' facts and look at the actual facts. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:31, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::@Scorpionman - We can look at fossil records, sediment layers, carbon dating which all point to the same fact that crocodiles have existed for a very long time. They are not ''my'' facts but the accepted facts of the vast majority of the worlds zoologists. I.E. they are the ''actual'' facts as they stand. Besides, what exactly makes you so sure that what's in the bible has any truth to it at all? You are being asked by the bible to believe fairy tale stories like Noah's flood which are ludicrous. If you really think about these stories logically they make no sense at all.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh? And evolution asks you to believe that we, animals, plants, earth, even the entire UNIVERSE came about by pure chance! Come on, if that's not a fairy tale I don't know what is. It makes a lot more "logical sense" to believe that there's an Intelligent Designer here. Your comments prove to me that you really know little to nothing of the Bible, that you've just read some biased evolutionist's view of it. Read it for yourself; it makes a lot more sense if you do that. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 09:11, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::Then perhaps you should also believe Scientology's story of Xenu and his Thetons. Why not?(I'm NOT a Scientologist btw.) Because its just as likely and provable as the Bible stories. Evolution does not ask us to believe the Earth/Universe came about by pure chance, evolution has nothing to do with the origin on the Universe. The diversity of life comes from tiny incremental steps through natural selection ( a simple logical process ). The origin of life on Earth is unlikely yes, but all it needed was one chance to start then it could sustain itself. --[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 09:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Evolution is not based only on random chance. DNA being mutated, recombining improperly, or undergoing transcription errors are random. But those changes are then either removed from the population, or are kept through natural selection. Natural selection is definitely NOT random.

==Ugh==

To the person who added the last information...again - The writing was NOT cited before, hence the deletion, now it is, but with a single biased source which does not include each possible perspective. Now it's locked, despite being horribly short. Do not state the T-Rex as being a slow vegetarian as fact, it's speculation and there is more than one view. "If some of the dinosaurs we find killed by the Flood did eat meat, they were probably scavengers (like vultures) that lived off the bodies of large dead animals." is not necissarily correct either. I, for one, don't believe there was a great flood, and that they were actually killed by a meteor. It's also possible that they ran out of food. Either way, you cannot state something like that as fact. And they weren't "probably" scavengers, that is just one point of view, from one particular group of scientists. Also the sentence "Bible-believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals." is ridiculous. They can't be sure of anything, it's a clear bias. You know, as long as I'm critiquing the article, I might as well go through all of it. "The Tyrannosaurus was originally thought to be a carnivore. However, this assertion directly contradicts the statements in the Bible that all animals were herbivorous before sin was introduced to the world." - not relevant, many things contradict the bible that are not incorrect. "Recent evidence has backed up the idea that many of the Dinosaurs like the T-Rex once thought to be meat eaters are actually vegetarians. New research suggests that the Tyranosaurus would not be able to move very quickly. [1] So most other dinosaurs, being fast moving creatures, could have easily gotten away from him." Most other dinosaurs weren't quick, some were, some were very very slow. "Also, the teeth of the Tyranosaur are not well rooted in the Dinosaur's mouth, meaning it seems they could have snapped off easily in a battle.[2] Many have compared his teeth to those of the vegetarian spider monkey." Who are the many? But anyway, the teeth are still strong enough to bite through flesh. "Also, Tyranosaur's front legs were insufficient for attacking any other Dinosaurs." - Irrelevant, they didn't use their front legs to attack other dinosaurs, they used their jaws. Last two points discussed above. Include more than just one pro-creationism source and you might find some more accurate information. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 17:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't agree that they were mere herbivores, but please don't associate this with ''all'' creationits; after all, CreationWiki believes that they were scavengers as well as carnivores. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:38, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Herbivorous? ==

While Tyrannosaurs were no doubt herbivorous ''before'' the Fall, I don't think it makes sense to believe that they were ''afterwards''. T-rex had a forward-facing eye, which suggests that it would be easier for the dinosaur to see its prey more easily, rather than having to cock its head to look at it. Please read this article by [[CreationWiki]]: [http://www.creationwiki.org/Tyrannosaurs] And also read the one by Wikipedia, just don't pay attention to all that "Cretaceous Period" and "Million years ago" nonsense, but it does have a good section on killer vs. scavenger. I'm sure they did scavenge meat if they found it, but they certainly seem adept hunters. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Redirect oddity? ==

First of all: I love the article, it's really hilarious. Especially the last line. That one made my day.

But on a somewhat more serious note, what is the accepted main article? Right now, the ''article'' page for "rex" redirects to "Rex", but the ''talk'' page for "Rex" redirects to "rex". It's a minor thing, but still. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Do we mean NOW? ==
I notice the the (locked) article says ..(they) "'''are''' actually vegetarians" and that Scorpioman says "they certainly '''seem''' adept hunters." Errrr.... We do know they are dead - don't we? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:Apparently, you and I do, but they're not quite sure. See [[Dinosaur]] and its sources, especially [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Velociraptor

2007-03-18T17:18:41Z

Sm355:

'''Velociraptor''' is the name for a small, fast-running, carnivore, bird-like [[dinosaur]]. According to Christian beliefs, it was created on the fifth creation day (approximately 6000 B.C.)
.[1][2] Velociraptor may have been known in the bible as Behemoth which is literally translated to "Giant Kingly Beast".[3] Velociraptor was small for a dromaeosaurid, with adults measuring up to 1.8 meters (5.9 ft) long, 0.62 meters (2 ft) high at the hip, and weighing 20 kilograms (45 lb)[4] The Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore it is speculated that Velociraptor (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.[5] So it logical to assume that Velociraptor survived the flood (4300 B.C). The velociraptor is now extinct.

Sources:
[1]http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/gen_1-2.shtml
[2]http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm
[3]http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html
[4]Norell, M.A. & Makovicky, P.J. 1999. Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis. American Museum Novitates 3282
[5]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

Velociraptor

2007-03-18T17:16:49Z

Sm355:

'''Velociraptor''' is the name for a small, fast-running, carnivore, bird-like [[dinosaur]]. According to Christian beliefs, it was created on the fifth creation day (approximately 6000 B.C.)
.[1][2] Velociraptor may have been known in the bible as Behemoth which is literally translated to "Giant Kingly Beast".[3] Velociraptor was small for a dromaeosaurid, with adults measuring up to 1.8 meters (5.9 ft) long, 0.62 meters (2 ft) high at the hip, and weighing 20 kilograms (45 lb)[4] The Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the “clean” animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, Velociraptor (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark.[5] So it logical to assume that Velociraptor survived the flood (4300 B.C). The velociraptor was thought hunted to extinction by early man , but may exist in unpopulated areas of the world.

Sources:
[1]http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/gen_1-2.shtml
[2]http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm
[3]http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html
[4]Norell, M.A. & Makovicky, P.J. 1999. Important features of the dromaeosaurid skeleton II: information from newly collected specimens of Velociraptor mongoliensis. American Museum Novitates 3282
[5]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.asp

Talk:Artificial intelligence

2007-03-18T15:36:09Z

Sm355: New page: ''Many religious leaders have likened the progress in artificial intelligence as a contrived effort by secular liberal organizations to subvert the divinity of God, essentially attempting ...

''Many religious leaders have likened the progress in artificial intelligence as a contrived effort by secular liberal organizations to subvert the divinity of God, essentially attempting to cut God out of the loop and take his place as the creator of all life.''

There are no references for this statement.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 11:36, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Pythagorean theorem

2007-03-18T15:29:30Z

Sm355:

The Pythagorean theorem is possibly the most well known mathematical theorem. It states that by taking the square of each length of a right angled triangle and adding them together you will get the length of the [[hypotenuse]] squared. This is expressed mathematically as:

a^2 + b^2 = c^2