Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-29T14:02:06Z

Tomservo:

{{debate}}

After Cain was banished, he was marked so no one would kill him, moved to the city of Nod and married. Who were those people? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible talks of Adam and Eve being the ''first'' people created - it doesn't say they were the ''last''. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:21, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:: So sometime in between the Fall and Cain's exile, God made more humans but the Bible didn't bother to say anything about it? What other kind of stuff could God have been up to that we don't know about? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 22:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::LoL - stop setting up straw man arguments. The Bible isn't G-d's diary, you know! :D 22:25, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, but if there's no explanation, should we just make one up? I mean, maybe they were demons or something. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 23:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::How about read it for a change. The Bible states that Adam was the father to an unknown number of sons and daughters when he died. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible is really sketchy about the order of how things happened. Plus the conversation Cain has with God about being worried about being killed makes it pretty clear that at the time there were other people to be worried about. It's pretty clear that the multitude of children came ''after'' Seth. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 10:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::So what does creation science have to say? I thought it could explain what evolution couldn't. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:03, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::1) You're in the realm of history, not science, so creation science has nothing more to say than chemistry on this particular issue.
:::2) Elohim, the word used to describe who created the world, is plural. It means "gods."
:::3) Yahweh Elohim, the word used to describe who created Adam and Eve, is singular. It means "Lord of the gods."
:::4) Yahweh does not say he was the only god. He says he is the ''mightiest God.'' Read ''God at War'' by Gregory Boyd for a discussion on this point.
:::5) Plato's ''Critias'' dialogue describes how there were multiple gods, who divided the world among themselves, and "peopled their districts:"

::::"In the days of old the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment. There was no quarrelling; for you cannot rightly suppose that the gods did not know what was proper for each of them to have, or, knowing this, that they would seek to procure for themselves by contention that which more properly belonged to others. They all of them by just apportionment obtained what they wanted, and peopled their own districts; and when they had peopled them they tended us, their nurselings and possessions, as shepherds tend their flocks, excepting only that they did not use blows or bodily force, as shepherds do, but governed us like pilots from the stern of the vessel, which is an easy way of guiding animals, holding our souls by the rudder of persuasion according to their own pleasure;-thus did they guide all mortal creatures. Now different gods had their allotments in different places which they set in order. Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land, which was naturally adapted for wisdom and virtue; and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages. For when there were any survivors, as I have already said, they were men who dwelt in the mountains; and they were ignorant of the art of writing, and had heard only the names of the chiefs of the land, but very little about their actions. The names they were willing enough to give to their children; but the virtues and the laws of their predecessors, they knew only by obscure traditions; and as they themselves and their children lacked for many generations the necessaries of life, they directed their attention to the supply of their wants, and of them they conversed, to the neglect of events that had happened in times long past; for mythology and the enquiry into antiquity are first introduced into cities when they begin to have leisure, and when they see that the necessaries of life have already been provided, but not before. And this is reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions. This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner. Moreover, since military pursuits were then common to men and women, the men of those days in accordance with the custom of the time set up a figure and image of the goddess in full armour, to be a testimony that all animals which associate together, male as well as female, may, if they please, practise in common the virtue which belongs to them without distinction of sex. "
:::6) It stands to reason, taking these sources as historical, that Yahweh Elohim peopled His garden, while the rest of the Elohim peopled the rest of the Earth.
:::7) All cultures agree that some of these gods, (the "Bene Elohim" as named in the Hebrew histories) became corrupt and interbred with human women. The ancient history of every world culture agrees on that point.
:::8) So the people of the world became corrupt and totally violent. Take a look at archaeological evidence of ancient cults if you doubt.
:::9) So ''Yahweh Elohim'' sent a flood to wipe out the wickedness. Again, every major world culture agrees on this point. Every culture in the world remembers a flood that destroyed everything, and a single family that survived.
:::You're in the realm of history here. So use historical sources. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh dear, I don't have time to take your explanation apart Ungtss, but I'll just make a few points of my own.

::::Agreed that it is history, but creation scientists are concerned with history, so it is something that they've discussed.

::::The Biblical account is not always in chronological order (just as some movies are not; they often have flashbacks, etc.), and sometimes jumps large periods of time. The people in Nod were the descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) of Adam and Eve (they must have been, as Eve was the "mother of all living" and Adam is the ultimate human ancestor of us all). These events clearly must have taken place after many years had passed, and the population had time to grow.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::But in this case it is in chronological order. It's pretty clear from the Bible that Adam and Eve did not start having many children until Seth was born, and that Seth was born after Cain was exiled. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:53, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I agree. It seems clear to me that Adam + his family were not the only people around at that point. That jives with the other ancient histories as well. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::: How could that jive, then, with the description of the world before the Fall? And the Bible says God made the Heavens and the Earth. Were Japanese Gods Izanami and Izanagi helping Him out? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 08:24, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are making this more difficult than it has to be, as Phillip has pointed out. Cain married later after he already had a number of brothers and sisters and probably nieces and nephews. When you have 900 years or so of time, a lot can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 08:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::But remember what Cain asked for when they kicked him out? He said, "But whoever finds me will kill me." Who was he worried about if there was nobody else around? It's the same problem. The Bible never says there was nobody else around. There are two reasons in the Bible itself to believe there were (Cain's marriage in Nod and his fear of being killed, and being given a mark to protect him). I can think of no reason to assume there was no one else around.[[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:28, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I've always found that to be weak. Would it make more sense if Cain believed he was forever going to be an only child? Worse yet, he has no knowledge of what is being said, who is growing up that will hate him and hunt him, etc. As the years would go on, would his next day be his last from a blow he never even knows is coming? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't understand your argument. The KJV in 4:13 has Cain saying,
::::::::::"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me." And the LORD said unto him, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
:::::::::Cain's remarks indicate some knowledge on his part that there are people out there who will kill him if they find him -- because why would he be afraid of things that didn't exist? And Yahweh's actions (protecting Cain with a mark and promising vengence on whoever harms him) indicate that there was somebody to protect Cain from, who would be dissuaded by the mark, and vengence taken upon them if they hurt him. How does this passage make any sense without other people in the world? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:35, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::''the Bible says God made the Heavens and the Earth. Were Japanese Gods Izanami and Izanagi helping Him out?''
:::::::The Bible says Elohim (gods) created the heavens and the Earth, but Yahweh Elohim (The Lord of the Gods) created Adam and Eve. The word Elohim is used throughout the first chapter, and word(s) "Yahweh Elohim" throughout the second chapter. The difference is so striking that some people think the two chapters are two different creation accounts. I just think the story is focusing in from the general to the particular -- from the gods to the Lord of the Gods. Check out the book of Jubilees and the book of Enoch for some interesting accounts of this time-period. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:28, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::You are aware there is a theology called Christianity, correct? As the Bible goes on, it is clear there is only one God. In the New Testament, we get the triune nature. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Ah, but my friend, Genesis wasn't written by Christians:). Even so, consider Paul acknowledging the existence of many gods while proclaiming loyalty to one: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor 8:5-6. Also: "Among the gods [there is] none like unto thee, O Lord; neither [are there any works] like unto thy works." Ps 86:8; "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.'" Psalm 82:1. "For you, O Lord, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods." 97:9; "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." Judges 11:24. And who were the Bene Elohim who married the human women, resulting in Giants, per Genesis? They show up again in the conversations between God and Satan in Job -- check it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::We moved a bit beyond the original scope here. Some of these ideas were brought up again in Talk:Other gods if anyone wishes to see further discussion on similar concepts. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the genealogies were telescoped. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:58, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-29T14:01:42Z

Tomservo:

{{debate}}

After Cain was banished, he was marked so no one would kill him, moved to the city of Nod and married. Who were those people? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:The Bible talks of Adam and Eve being the ''first'' people created - it doesn't say they were the ''last''. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 06:21, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:: So sometime in between the Fall and Cain's exile, God made more humans but the Bible didn't bother to say anything about it? What other kind of stuff could God have been up to that we don't know about? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 22:07, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::LoL - stop setting up straw man arguments. The Bible isn't G-d's diary, you know! :D 22:25, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::: Yeah, but if there's no explanation, should we just make one up? I mean, maybe they were demons or something. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 23:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::How about read it for a change. The Bible states that Adam was the father to an unknown number of sons and daughters when he died. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:33, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::The Bible is really sketchy about the order of how things happened. Plus the conversation Cain has with God about being worried about being killed makes it pretty clear that at the time there were other people to be worried about. It's pretty clear that the multitude of children came ''after'' Seth.
::So what does creation science have to say? I thought it could explain what evolution couldn't. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:03, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:::1) You're in the realm of history, not science, so creation science has nothing more to say than chemistry on this particular issue.
:::2) Elohim, the word used to describe who created the world, is plural. It means "gods."
:::3) Yahweh Elohim, the word used to describe who created Adam and Eve, is singular. It means "Lord of the gods."
:::4) Yahweh does not say he was the only god. He says he is the ''mightiest God.'' Read ''God at War'' by Gregory Boyd for a discussion on this point.
:::5) Plato's ''Critias'' dialogue describes how there were multiple gods, who divided the world among themselves, and "peopled their districts:"

::::"In the days of old the gods had the whole earth distributed among them by allotment. There was no quarrelling; for you cannot rightly suppose that the gods did not know what was proper for each of them to have, or, knowing this, that they would seek to procure for themselves by contention that which more properly belonged to others. They all of them by just apportionment obtained what they wanted, and peopled their own districts; and when they had peopled them they tended us, their nurselings and possessions, as shepherds tend their flocks, excepting only that they did not use blows or bodily force, as shepherds do, but governed us like pilots from the stern of the vessel, which is an easy way of guiding animals, holding our souls by the rudder of persuasion according to their own pleasure;-thus did they guide all mortal creatures. Now different gods had their allotments in different places which they set in order. Hephaestus and Athene, who were brother and sister, and sprang from the same father, having a common nature, and being united also in the love of philosophy and art, both obtained as their common portion this land, which was naturally adapted for wisdom and virtue; and there they implanted brave children of the soil, and put into their minds the order of government; their names are preserved, but their actions have disappeared by reason of the destruction of those who received the tradition, and the lapse of ages. For when there were any survivors, as I have already said, they were men who dwelt in the mountains; and they were ignorant of the art of writing, and had heard only the names of the chiefs of the land, but very little about their actions. The names they were willing enough to give to their children; but the virtues and the laws of their predecessors, they knew only by obscure traditions; and as they themselves and their children lacked for many generations the necessaries of life, they directed their attention to the supply of their wants, and of them they conversed, to the neglect of events that had happened in times long past; for mythology and the enquiry into antiquity are first introduced into cities when they begin to have leisure, and when they see that the necessaries of life have already been provided, but not before. And this is reason why the names of the ancients have been preserved to us and not their actions. This I infer because Solon said that the priests in their narrative of that war mentioned most of the names which are recorded prior to the time of Theseus, such as Cecrops, and Erechtheus, and Erichthonius, and Erysichthon, and the names of the women in like manner. Moreover, since military pursuits were then common to men and women, the men of those days in accordance with the custom of the time set up a figure and image of the goddess in full armour, to be a testimony that all animals which associate together, male as well as female, may, if they please, practise in common the virtue which belongs to them without distinction of sex. "
:::6) It stands to reason, taking these sources as historical, that Yahweh Elohim peopled His garden, while the rest of the Elohim peopled the rest of the Earth.
:::7) All cultures agree that some of these gods, (the "Bene Elohim" as named in the Hebrew histories) became corrupt and interbred with human women. The ancient history of every world culture agrees on that point.
:::8) So the people of the world became corrupt and totally violent. Take a look at archaeological evidence of ancient cults if you doubt.
:::9) So ''Yahweh Elohim'' sent a flood to wipe out the wickedness. Again, every major world culture agrees on this point. Every culture in the world remembers a flood that destroyed everything, and a single family that survived.
:::You're in the realm of history here. So use historical sources. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 09:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh dear, I don't have time to take your explanation apart Ungtss, but I'll just make a few points of my own.

::::Agreed that it is history, but creation scientists are concerned with history, so it is something that they've discussed.

::::The Biblical account is not always in chronological order (just as some movies are not; they often have flashbacks, etc.), and sometimes jumps large periods of time. The people in Nod were the descendants (children, grandchildren, etc.) of Adam and Eve (they must have been, as Eve was the "mother of all living" and Adam is the ultimate human ancestor of us all). These events clearly must have taken place after many years had passed, and the population had time to grow.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:37, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::But in this case it is in chronological order. It's pretty clear from the Bible that Adam and Eve did not start having many children until Seth was born, and that Seth was born after Cain was exiled. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:53, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I agree. It seems clear to me that Adam + his family were not the only people around at that point. That jives with the other ancient histories as well. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:16, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::: How could that jive, then, with the description of the world before the Fall? And the Bible says God made the Heavens and the Earth. Were Japanese Gods Izanami and Izanagi helping Him out? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 08:24, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::You are making this more difficult than it has to be, as Phillip has pointed out. Cain married later after he already had a number of brothers and sisters and probably nieces and nephews. When you have 900 years or so of time, a lot can happen. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 08:51, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::But remember what Cain asked for when they kicked him out? He said, "But whoever finds me will kill me." Who was he worried about if there was nobody else around? It's the same problem. The Bible never says there was nobody else around. There are two reasons in the Bible itself to believe there were (Cain's marriage in Nod and his fear of being killed, and being given a mark to protect him). I can think of no reason to assume there was no one else around.[[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:28, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I've always found that to be weak. Would it make more sense if Cain believed he was forever going to be an only child? Worse yet, he has no knowledge of what is being said, who is growing up that will hate him and hunt him, etc. As the years would go on, would his next day be his last from a blow he never even knows is coming? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't understand your argument. The KJV in 4:13 has Cain saying,
::::::::::"Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, [that] every one that findeth me shall slay me." And the LORD said unto him, "Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
:::::::::Cain's remarks indicate some knowledge on his part that there are people out there who will kill him if they find him -- because why would he be afraid of things that didn't exist? And Yahweh's actions (protecting Cain with a mark and promising vengence on whoever harms him) indicate that there was somebody to protect Cain from, who would be dissuaded by the mark, and vengence taken upon them if they hurt him. How does this passage make any sense without other people in the world? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:35, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::''the Bible says God made the Heavens and the Earth. Were Japanese Gods Izanami and Izanagi helping Him out?''
:::::::The Bible says Elohim (gods) created the heavens and the Earth, but Yahweh Elohim (The Lord of the Gods) created Adam and Eve. The word Elohim is used throughout the first chapter, and word(s) "Yahweh Elohim" throughout the second chapter. The difference is so striking that some people think the two chapters are two different creation accounts. I just think the story is focusing in from the general to the particular -- from the gods to the Lord of the Gods. Check out the book of Jubilees and the book of Enoch for some interesting accounts of this time-period. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 15:28, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::You are aware there is a theology called Christianity, correct? As the Bible goes on, it is clear there is only one God. In the New Testament, we get the triune nature. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:06, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Ah, but my friend, Genesis wasn't written by Christians:). Even so, consider Paul acknowledging the existence of many gods while proclaiming loyalty to one: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 1 Cor 8:5-6. Also: "Among the gods [there is] none like unto thee, O Lord; neither [are there any works] like unto thy works." Ps 86:8; "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods.'" Psalm 82:1. "For you, O Lord, are most high over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods." 97:9; "Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? So whomsoever the LORD our God shall drive out from before us, them will we possess." Judges 11:24. And who were the Bene Elohim who married the human women, resulting in Giants, per Genesis? They show up again in the conversations between God and Satan in Job -- check it out. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:34, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::We moved a bit beyond the original scope here. Some of these ideas were brought up again in Talk:Other gods if anyone wishes to see further discussion on similar concepts. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the genealogies were telescoped. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:57, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 12:58, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Atom

2007-06-22T15:03:13Z

Tomservo: /* Biblical Discussion */

This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.

: Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753(198106)72%3A2%3C216%3ATHOTQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J] [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3687]

::: I couldn't find anyone contradicting basic quark theory. A 1981 paper seemed to want to address some philosophical issues, I'm not sure. The 2003 story said that some observation was 10% different from what was expected, but no one is doubting quarks. Quark theory is rock solid science. (So is most of evolution, but that is for another page.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Most elementary particle physicists believe there are elements of truth in the quark model but none of them think its completely correct. The most serious criticisms are that (i) it has very few new experimental verifications, (ii) it is not renormalizable (the mathematics behind it don't really make sense), and (iii) it is inconsistent with Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity).

:::: However, you and I both know that if there were something in the Bible contradicting quark theory, there would be a "Discovery Institute" dedicated to debunking it. Anyone expressing any reservations (such as lamenting the lack of experimental data) would be dragged out as a hero of the opposition.

:::::Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I misspoke (miswrote?). QCD is renormalizable but the need for renormalization indicates that the theory has fundamental mathematical problems. Read Feynman on this point, for example. You might like the experimental support for quark models, but observational support for evolution is ten times stronger. You insist on calling evolution "just a theory" but have no problem saying the quark model is a fact. Are you seriously saying that the funders of the Discovery Institute are not motivated by religion? Are you seriously saying that they are scientists who happen to have a different opinion about evolution? -Lgm

:::::::: You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::It may have nothing to do with atoms, but it has much to do with the conservapedia. Sometimes they dredge up uncertainty where there is none (evolution). In other places, they report more certainty than there is (quarks).

::::::::At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Discussion ==
I don't see why the Bible quote was removed; it is a ''direct statement'' from the Bible on the nature of matter. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 07:00, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:As a general rule, I'd get RSchlafy's ok first before putting the information back in. It is unclear God is specifically directing that verse towards the atom or that all people of faith would necessarily take that position. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 08:45, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:: Sure, I will remember that next time. Thanks! [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 11:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-22T12:24:31Z

Tomservo:

Same-sex marriage

2007-06-22T11:34:58Z

Tomservo: /* Issues */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''', also referred to as [[homosexuality|gay]] marriage or [[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage, is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. James Dobson's [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "civil unions" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Other people have pointed out that recognizing gay marriages will allow gay couples to have families, thus teaching their children homosexual values, which many see as an act of sexual abuse.<ref>[http://www.defendmarriage.org/defendmarriage/FAQshtml/faqshtml.cfm Defend Marriage]</ref>

==Reference==
<references/>

[[Category:Law|Same-Sex marriage]]

Bill O'Reilly

2007-06-22T11:15:35Z

Tomservo:

[[Image:Bll.png|thumb|right|Bill O' Reilly On The O' Reilly Report]]
'''Bill O'Reilly''' is a popular commentator and host of the show ''The O'Reilly Factor'' on the [[Fox News Channel]], which he calls the "No Spin Zone." O'Reilly often remarks that his personal political viewpoint is not captured by the modern [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] and [[Republican Party|Republican]] archetypes and would rather call himself a "traditionalist." In this vein, he has expressed support for some positions not traditionally associated with his political supporters including anthropogenic climate change and civil unions for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The hosts who fill in for him when he is not hosting, however, are all standard [[conservative]] Republicans, such as [[John Kasich]], [[Michelle Malkin]], and [[Laura Ingraham]]. ([[Tony Snow]] also had filled in a few times prior to becoming White House Press Secretary).

''The O'Reilly Factor'' is the highest-rated hours on any cable news channel. 20 million people a week watch the show and there are millions more who hear him on radio stations. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/23/60minutes/main645202.shtml Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin"] Transcript 60 Minutes with Mike Wallace aired Sept. 26, 2004. </ref>

==Trivia==
* O'Reilly and copycat [[Stephen Colbert]] have a friendly rivalry, even appearing on each others' shows.
* O'Reilly is a big fan of Middle Eastern food.

==References==
<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT: O'Reilly, Bill}}
[[Category:Broadcasters|O'Reilly, Bill]]

110th United States Congress

2007-06-22T11:10:25Z

Tomservo: /* Other Congresses */

[[Image:Pr070620biii.gif|350px|right|thumb|By mid-June Congressional Approval Ratings were lowest in a decade. [http://galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937]]]
The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years.

==Achievements==

In the first five months of 2007 after the Democratic party took control of Congress, the majority party,

* Reissued a "blank check" to the President on the [[Iraq War]], which allegedly was opposed by 70 percent <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/ The entire government has failed us on Iraq], Keith Olbermann, MSNBC ''Countdown'', May 24, 2007.</ref> in opinion polls and was vociferously opposed by many Congressional candidates in 2006. The bill included an increase in the minimum wage.

* Successfully renamed six post offices, four courthouses, a national park, and one of the buildings housing the Department of Education in Washington. They also extended the lives of two government commissions, reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 20, and authorized construction of 541 feet of road on a flood plain in St. Louis County, Missouri.

*Kept the government going with two temporary spending bills, completed no regular appropriations bills, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, and passed a bill on penalties for animal fighting that had passed in the Republican Congress last year.

*Voted to kill lobbying reforms that were part of the 2006 [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act]] Democratic candidates made a centerpiece of their campaign message in 2006. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/panel-softens-lobbying-bill-provisions-2007-05-17.html Panel softens lobbying bill provisions], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', May 17, 2007.</ref>

By mid June 2007, Congressional Approval ratings had hit a new low, with only 23% of the American people expressing approval, worse than [[President George W. Bush]] had experienced. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070617-115222-5077r.htm Democratic Congress shows cracks], By Donald Lambro, ''The Washington Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref> The ''L.A. Times'' reported Congressional Approval ratings were the lowest in a decade--since the [[Bill_Clinton#Impeachment|Clinton Impeachment]] trial. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,1,2398539.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true Approval of Congress lowest in a decade], By Noam N. Levey, ''L.A. Times'', June 12, 2007.</ref>

==Earmark reform==

A House ethics panel is led by a lawmaker who holds the record for taking the most free travel, while another panel member was implicated in the recent flap over the firing of U.S. attorneys. The earmark process by which so-called "pork barrel" projects are doled out to members by June of 2007 saw no major changes. In fact, rules approved the first day in power in January, the ''Associated Press'' reported, where being ignored. Rep. [[David Obey]] of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed members to withhold "earmark requests" until September.

According to the ''Associated Press'', what Obey did ran counter to new rules Democrats promised that would make spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny. The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them. The greater transparency was intended to lead to more self-discipline on the part of lawmakers. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun03/0,4670,CongressPetProjects,00.html House Keeps Pet Projects From Scrutiny] Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, June 03, 2007.</ref> Two weeks later, a group called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) reported that after a wave of protest from across the [[political spectrum]], Democrats backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally earmarked spending. CAGW President Tom Schatz said
“Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play ‘God’ with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability.” <ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10818 Obey Lost - Taxpayers Won!], Citizens Against Waste in Government Press Release June 15, 2007.</ref>

The legislative journal, ''The Hill'', reported Sen. [[Carl Levin]] and Sen. [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] were the two top Senatorial [[Pork#Government_Budgets|pork barrel]] reciepients via the earmark process in 2007. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

== Other Congresses ==
* Previous: [[109th United States Congress]]
* See also: [[103rd United States Congress]]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:politics]]

103rd United States Congress

2007-06-22T11:09:48Z

Tomservo: New page: The 103rd United States Congress finally saw an increase in the Republican majority of Congress. House speaker Newt Gingrich declared Congress "under new management" during this Congre...

The 103rd United States Congress finally saw an increase in the Republican majority of Congress. House speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] declared Congress "under new management" during this Congress. This Congress was able to pass much excellent conservative pro-American legislation despite liberal and impeached president [[Bill Clinton]] being in office. Coincidentally, the ushering in of a Republican dominated Congress exactly coincided with the success of the US economy, an strong economy that lasted until the [[Democrats]] surprisingly won power back in 2006. Not surprisingly, the economy then dropped sharply, as did Congressional opinion polls.

110th United States Congress

2007-06-22T11:04:27Z

Tomservo:

[[Image:Pr070620biii.gif|350px|right|thumb|By mid-June Congressional Approval Ratings were lowest in a decade. [http://galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27937]]]
The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years.

==Achievements==

In the first five months of 2007 after the Democratic party took control of Congress, the majority party,

* Reissued a "blank check" to the President on the [[Iraq War]], which allegedly was opposed by 70 percent <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/ The entire government has failed us on Iraq], Keith Olbermann, MSNBC ''Countdown'', May 24, 2007.</ref> in opinion polls and was vociferously opposed by many Congressional candidates in 2006. The bill included an increase in the minimum wage.

* Successfully renamed six post offices, four courthouses, a national park, and one of the buildings housing the Department of Education in Washington. They also extended the lives of two government commissions, reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 20, and authorized construction of 541 feet of road on a flood plain in St. Louis County, Missouri.

*Kept the government going with two temporary spending bills, completed no regular appropriations bills, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, and passed a bill on penalties for animal fighting that had passed in the Republican Congress last year.

*Voted to kill lobbying reforms that were part of the 2006 [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act]] Democratic candidates made a centerpiece of their campaign message in 2006. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/panel-softens-lobbying-bill-provisions-2007-05-17.html Panel softens lobbying bill provisions], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', May 17, 2007.</ref>

By mid June 2007, Congressional Approval ratings had hit a new low, with only 23% of the American people expressing approval, worse than [[President George W. Bush]] had experienced. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070617-115222-5077r.htm Democratic Congress shows cracks], By Donald Lambro, ''The Washington Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref> The ''L.A. Times'' reported Congressional Approval ratings were the lowest in a decade--since the [[Bill_Clinton#Impeachment|Clinton Impeachment]] trial. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,1,2398539.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true Approval of Congress lowest in a decade], By Noam N. Levey, ''L.A. Times'', June 12, 2007.</ref>

==Earmark reform==

A House ethics panel is led by a lawmaker who holds the record for taking the most free travel, while another panel member was implicated in the recent flap over the firing of U.S. attorneys. The earmark process by which so-called "pork barrel" projects are doled out to members by June of 2007 saw no major changes. In fact, rules approved the first day in power in January, the ''Associated Press'' reported, where being ignored. Rep. [[David Obey]] of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed members to withhold "earmark requests" until September.

According to the ''Associated Press'', what Obey did ran counter to new rules Democrats promised that would make spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny. The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them. The greater transparency was intended to lead to more self-discipline on the part of lawmakers. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun03/0,4670,CongressPetProjects,00.html House Keeps Pet Projects From Scrutiny] Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, June 03, 2007.</ref> Two weeks later, a group called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) reported that after a wave of protest from across the [[political spectrum]], Democrats backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally earmarked spending. CAGW President Tom Schatz said
“Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play ‘God’ with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability.” <ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10818 Obey Lost - Taxpayers Won!], Citizens Against Waste in Government Press Release June 15, 2007.</ref>

The legislative journal, ''The Hill'', reported Sen. [[Carl Levin]] and Sen. [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] were the two top Senatorial [[Pork#Government_Budgets|pork barrel]] reciepients via the earmark process in 2007. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

== Other Congresses ==
Previous: [[109th United States Congress]]
See also: [[103rd United States Congress]]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:politics]]

Talk:Atom

2007-06-22T11:00:23Z

Tomservo:

Atom

2007-06-22T10:56:00Z

Tomservo:

[[Image:Ehli.png|thumb|right|Depiction of the helium atom]]
An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton|protons]], electrically neutral [[neutron|neutrons]] and negatively charged [[electron|electrons]]. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained in close proximity in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.
Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles, though neither are capable of being seen.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon". An alternative explanation exists among people of faith: the nucleus is in fact held together by the true Lord (Colossians 1:17 - "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.")

===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[Ion|ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes.

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-22T10:53:39Z

Tomservo:

Atom

2007-06-21T03:45:14Z

Tomservo:

[[Image:Ehli.png|thumb|right|Depiction of the helium atom]]
An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===

Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton|protons]], electrically neutral [[neutron|neutrons]] and negatively charged [[electron|electrons]]. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained in close proximity in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.
Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles, though neither are capable of being seen.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the "strong nuclear force." Some scientists say that this force is brought about by a tiny particle called a "gluon". However, no one has ever seen a gluon, and therefore an alternative explanation exists: the nucleus is in fact held together by the true Lord (Colossians 1:17 - "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.")

===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[Ion|ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes.

[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-21T03:09:52Z

Tomservo:

The Daily Show

2007-06-21T02:36:29Z

Tomservo: /* Jon Stewart on The Daily Show */

The Daily Show is an [[satire|satirical]] program that airs on Comedy Central. It has won multiple awards<ref>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/awards</ref>, and is known for its comedic satire of the news.

== Early Years ==
The show was originally hosted by Craig Kilborn, but in 1998 Jon Stewart replaced Kilborn.

== Jon Stewart on The Daily Show ==
Stewart is best known as the host of Comedy Central's [[The Daily Show]]. He often mocks the President, the war in [[Iraq]], Congress, and foreign policy.<ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref> Stewart often distorts video clips, sound bites, and news stories in order to make [[politicians]] look silly, often making it seem as though politicians have contradicted themselves, or showing Senate speeches that seem ridiculous out of context. <ref>http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20060711_jon_stewart_bush_diplomacy/</ref>

== Correspondents ==

The correspondents show a [[liberal bias]], and do different "news stories". These segments are usually aimed at poking humor at and satire of the political party in power. Thus, Stewart began by mocking of [[Republicans]], but now makes fun of [[Democrats]], as well as other topics in the news. Some argue that he demeans [[conservative]] positions, such as gun rights, [[pro-life]], or [[Christianity]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/browseresults.jhtml?showId=934</ref> One segment in particular, "This Week In God" mocks [[religious]] values, and the true living [[God]].<ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72342</ref> <ref>http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=72182</ref> Many would argue instead that this segment does not attempt to invalidate the values of Christianity or the true living God, but rather mocks a group of citizens exercising their constitutional rights.

== References ==
<references/>

Marxism

2007-06-21T02:29:35Z

Tomservo:

The doctrine and beliefs developed by [[Karl Marx]], and is for all intents and purposes equivalent to [[Communism]]. The difference is that Communism is a political implementation of Marxist ideology. Normally, liberals will point out that Marxism is not the same thing as [[Communism]], but this ignores the fact that Marx wrote [[The Communist Manifesto]], which was properly cited by Ronald Reagan as one of the most evil papers written in the history of mankind. [[Socialists]] also derive their ideology from this very same corrupt ideology.

== Ideology ==
A Marxist society, and therefore a Socialist one, does not allow an individual to gain wealth; instead, that wealth belongs to the people, allowing the uneducated and poor to flourish. Marxism also claims that the state should be in charge of laborers, not individuals, thus making the state the head of all industry. It also claims that personal preference should not be a factor in a person's career; rather, the state should decide a career for a person based on their optimal skills. Marxist societies reward conformity and denounce any sort of individuality or creativity.
[[category:politics]]
[[category:Sociology]]

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-21T02:07:31Z

Tomservo:

Same-sex marriage

2007-06-20T10:28:39Z

Tomservo: /* Issues */

'''Same-sex "marriage"''', also referred to as [[homosexuality|gay]] marriage or [[homosexuality|homosexual]] marriage, is the official certification in jurisdictions that allow a union between two people of the same sex. Social conservatives regard it as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman,<ref>E.g. "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony." ''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.

Dr. James Dobson's [[Focus on the Family]] refers to the phrase ''same-sex 'marriage,''' with quotation marks around the word ''marriage,'' to call attention to the fact that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that therefore same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Abuse of the term was unheard of a few decades ago, however these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[gay rights]] activists. In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow "civil unions" between two people of the same sex, and one, Massachusetts, currently allows it under the name "marriage." These marriages are not recognized by the Federal government.

== Background ==
In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that gay rights advocates would soon seek changes in some states. It was concerned about the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits gay marriage itself—must honor gay marriages performed in another state. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow "same-sex marriage" but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. As of 2007, California, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maine also provide civil unions or domestic partnerships. Beginning in 2008, the states of Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will also provide same-sex unions. Hawaii provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the sole state to issue same-sex marriage licenses.<ref>Because of an established Massachusetts law, Massachusetts same-sex marriages are all-but-limited to Massachusetts residents. The law says that an out-of-state couple cannot be married if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. The same-sex marriages are not recognized under federal law or in most other states.</ref>

The religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. Thus, even in Massachusetts, it would be close to impossible for a same-sex couple to find a Catholic priest willing to marry them in a church, or an Orthodox rabbi willing to marry them in a temple.

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
James Dobson of ''Focus on the Family'' suggests that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>[http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

Other people have pointed out that recognizing gay marriages will allow gay couples to have families, thus teaching their children homosexual values, which many see as an act of sexual abuse.

==Reference==
<references/>

[[Category:Law|Same-Sex marriage]]

Habeas corpus

2007-06-20T10:26:09Z

Tomservo:

A citizen's right to ''habeas corpus'' is their right to challenge the government to present a reason for her criminal or civil detention. This right was first secured by British citizens against their King with the signing of the [[Magna Carta]], a document upon which all Western [[democracy]] is based, and upon which the [[Founding Fathers]] of the [[United States of America]] heavily relied.

In Latin, the phrase translates roughly as "[we order that] you produce the body".

The right to ''habeas corpus'' is phrased as a [[writ]], making reference to the arcane system of writs by which legal claims were adjudicated prior to the 1900s (e.g., the "writ of replevin," or "writ of mandamus"). Thus, the right is referred to as "the writ of ''habeas corpus''," or, "the Great Writ."

The United States Constitution guarantees that the "privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it," in Article I, Section 9.<ref>U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 9</ref>

== United States ==
In the United States, a detainee may request a writ of Habeas Corpus review with any court that has jurisdication. If accepted by the court, the judge issues a writ of Habeas Corpus ordering the individual with custody of the detainee to produce the detainee for a hearing. During the hearing, the judge reviews the lawfulness of the detention, and if found unlawful, orders the detainee released. If, before the hearing, the custodian refuses to produce the body, it is at risk of being found in contempt of court, with potential consequences leading up to and including detention for the custodian until the body is produced.

[[United States]] [[Attorney General]] [[Alberto Gonzales]] has pointed out that there is no expressed grant of ''habeas corpus'' in the [[Constitution]].<ref>http://baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml</ref> Currently, U.S. law states that the privilege may be withheld if the defendant is declared as an "enemy combatant," though recently a court claimed this was not enforceable in a ruling (possibly overreaching the court's authority).

== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Latin Legal Terms]][[Category:Law]]

Where did all the people from the city of Nod come from?

2007-06-20T10:17:55Z

Tomservo: New page: {{debate}} After Cain was banished, he was marked so no one would kill him, moved to the city of Nod and married. Who were those people? ~~~~

{{debate}}

After Cain was banished, he was marked so no one would kill him, moved to the city of Nod and married. Who were those people? [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 06:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

Alberto R. Gonzales

2007-06-20T05:55:44Z

Tomservo:

{{DEFAULTSORT:Gonzales, Alberto R.}}
[[Category:Political people]]

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:480px-Alberto Gonzales - official DoJ photograph.jpg|right|thumb]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: Indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Alberto Gonzalez;
80th Attorney General of the United States
|-
|Born
|August 4, 1955
|-
|Term
|February 3, 2005 -
|-
|}

'''Alberto R. Gonzales''' (born August 4, 1955) is the 80th Attorney General of the United States, succeeding [[John Ashcroft]]. He is a graduate of [[Rice University]], and a former member of [[Lovett College]]. In 2007 he came under attack for the firing of 8 US attorneys across America. As of April 19, 2007 [[President Bush]] has stated that he will not call for the resignation of Gonzales.

== Achievements ==
* Led Project Safe Neighborhoods to help eliminate violence in inner cities.<ref>http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/May/06_ag_262.html</ref>
* Was instrumental in passing the historic Military Commissions Act

== "Controversies" ==
Alberto Gonzalez was the center of a controversy over the firings of 8 United States attorneys. Detractors insisted that the attorneys were fired for political reasons, instead of performance-based reasons (a claim that no one in the White House has ever made). Despite the fact that United States attorneys serve at the pleasure of the [[President of the United States]], and can be fired at any time for any reason, the [[Liberal bias|liberally biased]] media insists on calling it a scandal. In fact, Alberto Gonzalez "tempered the White House desire to replace U.S. Attorneys wholesale." <ref>http://communities.justicetalking.org/blogs/day24/archive/2007/03/23/alberto-gonzales-raw-deal.aspx</ref>

== Trivia ==
* Albert Gonzalez was voted the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Texas in 1992.
* His Secret Service nickname is "Elephant", a reference to his uncanny ability to memorize obscure parts of United States law.

== References ==
<references />

Franklin D. Roosevelt

2007-06-20T05:13:49Z

Tomservo:

{{rewrite|too much about decision to run for a third term, not enough about his depression-era economic ideas, not enough about the Second World War, too much attention paid to the Bible}}
{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|200px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: white; height: 30px; background: Indigo no-repeat scroll top left;"|Franklin Roosevelt;
Thirty-second President of the United States
|-
|Born
|January 30, 1882
|-
|Died
|April 12, 1945
|-
|Term
|1933-1945
|-
|}
'''Franklin Delano Roosevelt''' was the 32nd president of the United States of America, following [[Herbert Hoover]] and preceding [[Harry Truman]]. Roosevelt was a member of the [[Democratic Party]]. He was elected four times and served a few months longer than 3 terms, from 1933-1945, the longest any one man has been president of the United States. He was elected amidst the uncertainty of the [[Great Depression]].

On April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage, due partly to the crippling disease, [[polio]]myelitis, which physically disabled him during his presidency.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html</ref>

Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular in his time, it has been argued by scholars and analysts then and now that many [[New Deal]] relief efforts actually helped to prolong the [[Great Depression]]. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased American foreign aid. Some of these policies were viewed as necessary due to the incredibly high level of unemployment in the 1930s and later US involvement in WWII.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/printable.html</ref>.

== Reflections on Christianity ==

Franklin D. Roosevelt, commonly known as "FDR", said this about the Bible in an address on October 6, 1935:

:We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic ...

:Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity.<ref>Quoted in DeMar, ''The Untold Story'', p. 60 and Gabrial Sivan, ''The Bible and Civilization'' (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1973), p. 178.</ref>

FDR became famous for delivering "fireside chats" over the new medium of radio, and on March 9, 1937 he declared:

:I hope that you have re-read the Constitution of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again.

As [[World War II]] broke out in Europe, FDR warned:

:Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization.

== Decision to run for a third term ==
[[Image:Dcrosmor.jpg|right|thumb|330px]]
It is highly questionable whether FDR would have chosen to run for a third term had the [[Nazis]] not experienced such great success early in World War II, particularly in overrunning [[France]], which had been expected to hold out longer. Historian [[Doris Kearns Goodwin]] has explored the implications of triumphant Naziism for FDR's decision in her book ''No Ordinary Time''. While FDR had inaugurated the first system of peacetime [[conscription]] just after France fell, Congress had agreed to conscript men for one year only, and the frontrunner for the [[Republican]] Presidential nomination in 1940, [[Wendell Willkie]], was an isolationist. It was therefore entirely possible that both conscription and the war would end in 1941 with the Nazis in control of all [[Western Europe]] except for [[Britain]], which would be dangerously isolated. FDR's [[Democratic]] [[heir apparent]], [[Vice President]] [[John Nance Garner]] of [[Texas]], was at best lukewarm on both the war and the [[New Deal]]. To avoid this outcome, FDR probably decided to enter the war at the same time he decided to run again, although he was politically unable to do so until the [[Japanese]] attacked [[Pearl Harbor]] in December 1941.

Had FDR chosen not to run in 1940, he would quite likely have lived longer (the impact of the presidency on its occupants' health is infamous, and FDR eventually confided at least to his wife [[Eleanor Roosevelt]] that he wished to live beyond his term). The [[22nd Amendment]] to the [[U. S. Constitution]], if any, would have dealt with something besides term limitation of the President. FDR's reputation would, however, have been determined by the same factors that determined it in real life: the outcome of World War II, the ability of his party to cement its majority, and in the short term, the willingness of his successor to follow his policies. One of these, the close alliance with the [[Soviet Union]], was repudiated almost immediately by Truman, and as a result, Roosevelt is remembered by [[conservatives]] as at best a qualified success. A Republican 33rd President, however, would most likely have appointed anti-New Deal Justices to the [[U. S. Supreme Court]] (particularly had he been elected in 1940), with the result that Roosevelt today would be roundly condemned as a [[demagogue]], notwithstanding his decision to respect [[George Washington]]'s two-term precedent. Since the Republicans did not actually retake the [[White House]] until the [[1952 Presidential election]] (and then through a candidate who was perceived as being above politics), the New Deal had time to be embraced by a new generation of politicians and constitutional scholars of both parties, although not universally (see [[Constitution in exile movement]]). This may have been an equally important factor in Roosevelt's decision.

== Wartime record ==

The following year, on May 27, 1941, FDR stated in one of his radio addresses:

:The Nazis are as ruthless as the Communists in the denial of God.

At the most dificult point in the War, when American boys were landing on the beaches of Normandy, FDR led the nation in prayer publicy during a radio broadcast. <ref>Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer], June 6, 1944.</ref>

"In his second inaugural address, FDR pledged to do his utmost by 'seeking Divine guidance.' He took that self-appointed mandate further on January 25, 1941, when he wrote a personal prologue to a special edition of the New Testament, which was distributed to millions of U.S. soldiers. 'As Commander-in-Chief,' Roosevelt wrote, 'I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.' He believed that all American soldiers should have the opportunity to read the words of Christ in preparing for battle. Once, when joining those soldiers aboard a warship with Winston Churchill, FDR asked the crew and prime minister to join him in singing the hymn 'Onward Christian Soldiers.' In his final inaugural address, FDR affirmed, "So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly ... to achievement of His will.' "<ref>God and George W. Bush (New York: Regan Books, 2004), p. 176</ref>

== Handicap ==

Although FDR had difficulty walking and spent most of his time in a wheelchair, filmed images of his speeches hid this fact by focusing on his body from the waist up.

== Economics ==
FDR is also famous for his [[New Deal]], a set of economic reforms that were meant to bring about the end of the [[Great Depression]], but instead may have prolonged it and caused American citizens to be burdened with unnecessary government programs for decades to come.

==See also==
*[[New Ordeal]]

==References==
<references/>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176 "The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_greatdepression.html/ Great Depression]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1468 FDR: The Man, the Leader, the Legacy], Ralph Raico, Future of Freedom Foundation, April 1, 2001. Retreived from The Independent Institute.org 06/17/07.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Roosevelt, Franklin}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:World War II]]