Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-06-18T03:36:09Z

Trajsmith: /* History will judge him harshly */

{{protected|Geo.plrd}}

This page needs improvement to do justice to Rev. Falwell.

I rolled back the liberal gossip about Falwell and Rev. Moon. It's nothing more than a smear effort of the sort we don't allow under our [[rules]]. Falwell is not an adherent of Rev. Moon's church and Falwell is entitled to do business just like everyone else. The smear was unsupported by a credible resource.

Be fair to Christians and everyone else here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Also I'm not sure that rotten.com is a "reliable" source.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 22:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: My addition to this article is based on fact, not opinion. Critics do indeed attack Falwell's connection the Unification Church. This is not an attack or "smear" on Christians in general but a verifiable fact about the controversy surrounding a public figure. Opposing viewpoints supported by citations are welcome, but this is tantamount to censorhip. Rotten has an admitted liberal bias but all their info in this instance is credible and independently verifiable.

--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 22:22, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to edit this article over the next couple days. Falwell has been a tremendous educator, and his efforts deserve more than this. Stay tuned! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 21:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure why my changes were reverted. Jerry Falwell has ties to Republican causes and the Moral Majority is a part of the Religious Right, not the Religious right. For instance the Christian Coalition is part of the Religious Right as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:58, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

(Belated question) How is it a "smear" to link Falwell and Moon? Has [[Rev. Moon]] done something wrong? (Apart from not accepting [[Young Earth creationism]], I mean ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Just passed away==
CCN just reported his death today.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Someone commented out his support for apartheid. Not sure why as it's factual and documented. I removed the comment block around it...apologies for the double edit.

: Jerry Falwell was frequently misquoted and misinterpreted by anti-Christian enemies. Don't expect any unsourced, biased and misleading information, motivated by anti-Christian animus, to be allowed here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

My Civil Procedure professor represented Larry Flynt in his successful defense of Falwell's suit before the Supreme Court. He also played Falwell's attorney (switching sides) in the film version of the trial. Fun stuff. -'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 16:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==South Africa and apartheid==

Time magazine, Monday, Sep. 02, 1985:
*Falwell opposes apartheid, but professed faith that Botha will dismantle the system eventually, if only everyone is patient. [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,959695,00.html]

I stand corrected. I'll update changes to reflect this. Stompum
*Page is locked. Mods please remove the line about Falwell's support for Apartheid.

== Sept 11 comments ==

Why were these deleted? They're important, widely publicized, etc. I can't imagine anything other than censorship - that hallmark of Wikipedia - that would compel you to leave his unpopular side out of the article.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:When will you revert to re-include his Sept 11th comments?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that in the Nancy Pelosi article there is a section about her marching in the same group as a NAMBLA member. Seems very biased and one-sided to leave that part in there, but then take out any mention of Falwell's hateful statements on 9-11 because it might make him look bad. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:52, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think you are going to see anything but a hagiography here. Mr. Falwell represents everything this site's owners hold dear. I'll stick to paraphrasing Randi Rhodes: "If I had anything sympathetic to say about that man at all, I'd say it." But these people love him, and it's their site. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:30, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hagiography! Now there's a ten dollar word! Despite his apology, Rev. Falwell's quotes will forever be part of the 9/11 memory. But since the sysops love him, there's no way they'll include anything slightly negative here. RIP Falwell. Hope you don't meet any pagans, homosexuals, feminists, or ACLU members in heaven. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Well let's make sure the comments are recorded on the talk page if not in the article. Does anybody dispute that the Rev. Falwell said this? ''The abortionists have got to bear some burden for [the attacks of Sept. 11] because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.'''--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:21, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:If he apologized & retracted the statement, why should we repeat it? And without making that point, it's more out of context quote mining. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::I didn't know he'd apologized and retracted, but thank you for telling everybody so that we have that clear. However, he said it and presumably he said it because he thought it. Moreover, it's totally in line with other things he said, so I have no reason to think he said something he didn't mean. The fact that he was shamed into retracting it because it was so howlingly outrageous doesn't mean it doesn't represent what he thought.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:28, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Yes that is a good point. Let me throw out a rhetorical question: (a) Do you think gay adoption would be a good propaganda recruiting tool to exploit by Islamic terrorists, and (b) Do advocates of gay adoption have any moral responsibility to the rest of us ''if'' in fact gay adoption is a good recruiting tool to get suicide bombers to kill Americans? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:14, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
::::a) No - it is totally simplistic to imagine that terrorists attack us because they think we're morally decadent b) That is a 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' question. Now I'll ask you a couple of questions. a) Do you think Jerry Falwell's statements that "I think Muhammad was a terrorist" and that he "was a -- a violent man, a man of war" - statements against a man regarded by Muslims with as much reverence as Christians regard Jesus Christ, and that he later stood by - were more likely or less likely to increase terrorist attacks against Americans both here and in Iraq? [http://www.theturkishtimes.com/archive/02/10_15/f_falwell.html] And b) do you think Conservapedia's continuing to host (for at least the last two months) a copy of one of the cartoons that caused rioting in Denmark on our article about the [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]] is more likely or less likely to help bring about peace? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Quotes==
Here's a website (I know it's biased, but the quotes are accurate): http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/devil.html

You can form your own opinion about him, I don't care what you think, but I just thought it might be helpful to create an opinion on him (to conservatives: look for the two anti-semitic quotes.)
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:Oh really? Let's take this one,
*''Alcoholism and Negroes
"There are almost as many alcoholics as there
are negroes."
Rev. Jerry Falwell

You alleged "source" gives us a classic ''argumentum ad ignoratiam''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Your reply is barely coherent. Explanation?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 17:58, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Your source uses the conjunctive word, "and"; Rev. Falwell nowhere conjoins alcholism and Negroes; in fact, Rev. Falwell does a compararison of the statisical population of both. This is typical of the trite garbage that passes as reasoned discourse from some sectors of liberalism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
So that's one quote that might be out of context. The rest, though?-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 18:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Hey, don't shoot the messenger (I did mention the source is biased), you're entitled to your own opinion.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

OK, I randomly picked a liberal quote of [[Jerry Falwell]]:

"I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their
problem."

Colorful and statistically accurate. I agree it's not politically correct. Go to Hillary Clinton for political correctness. [[Jerry Falwell]] spoke the truth in a colorful way, and we thank him for that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:19, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:How come you don't like women?
: Hey I'll have to tell my husband he's a Casper Milquetoast who needs to ask me for permission to go to the bathroom. He'll die laughing. Do people really take these ridiculous stereotypes seriously?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:17, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

How about these?

"The idea of separation of Church and State
was invented by the Devil to keep Christians
from running their own country."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure
as a human being."

Rev. Jerry Falwell

"He is purple - the gay-pride colour; and his antenna
is shaped like a triangle - the gay-pride symbol."

Rev. Jerry Falwell
(Falwell on the teletubbies, come on, how much more paranoid can you get?)
::Did he really say this? Check a less biased source.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Falwell's magazine to his supporters (and not even Falwell himself) first brought up the topic, but it was a repeat of what was already being winked at in media circles. Both Time Magazine and TV guide had already brought out the same information (albeit not in a negative form), a fact easily forgotten when the opportunity to blame Jerry Falwell arose. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:06, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

I got 10 identical matches on the first page of google...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
::Yes, but he himself did not say this. It was his newspaper. He had no involvement.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

I wasn't there, and wikipedia is rather vague about it, but the BBC link is pretty clear, what do you think of his claims about Jews?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

He said: "God doesn't listen to Jews." --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:20, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

And for all those people with little Israeli flags on their user pages:

"I know a few of you here today don't like Jews.
And I know why. He can make more money accidentally
than you can on purpose.

Rev. Jerry Falwell

The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief.
They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of
their Messiah and Savior.

Jerry Falwell, Listen, America!

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Confronting his critics ==

While I disagree with the Rev on many issues, he was never afraid to discuss his disagreements with others. He would have gladly sat down with Clinton, Dawkins, anyone, and debated any issue. I do wish more people would follow that example, rather than censoring or pushing away those with whom they disagree.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:22, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== History will judge him harshly ==

Ultimately, Falwell was one of the group who used religion as a cause for separating rather than uniting. His notoriously stupid remarks about gays just after 9/11, a somewhat thinly disguised anti-semetism, and some absurd remarks on pop culture (you know, the one about the Tele-tubby being a gay role model), rather than appealing to our better selves, goaded our darker sides.

My reading of the new testatment indicates that Jesus preached tolerance and loving thy neighbor. And indeed, when I was a kid, I recall religous folks were always pretty nice people, even if their kids couldn't play hockey on Sunday.

Tell you what, read the book of Matthew, look at some old Billy Graham sermons, and forget this mean-spirted blowhard.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:So I guess an apology means nothing, huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't think that an apology undoes the harm he did to a country that was trying to heal, when he tore the wounds open & rubbed salt in them again.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:25, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::will someone explain exactly what harm he did?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
Bohdan, here [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/]

Speaker, Frankly, I'm certain Falwell spoke from the heart, and quickly realized America needed to be united in the coming war, and not fighting among ourselves. That's why he immediately issued the apology. Truth is, I'm also fairly certain Falwell gave voice to the sentiments a lot of other Americans were experiencing at the same time. And based upon the daily drumbeat of hatred we see from gays and neopagans directed at Bush, (and comments we've seen here), Falwell was right. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Daily drumbeat of hatred from homosexuals and neopagans? Can you give an... actual example? I'm thrilled to see it.-'''Speak[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:SpeakerOfTheDead er]''' 21:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::Polls say 60%+ nolonger wish to take the war to the terrorists. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::I hate to say it, but that's 60% of the American people, right? So it's not like it's exclusively gays and pagans who don't particularly like Bush. I'm sure there are people in the 60% who are not gay or pagan who hate Bush, while not the majority. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:59, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Go to [[:Category:Anti-war movement]] and see who's been anti-war since Falwell made this statement. Incidentally, too bad the NAMBLA article got deleted, they've been leading the anti-war movement since March 2003. But for reference, you can visit NAMBLA advocate [[Harry Hay]]. Seems he's no stranger to anti-war activity and working with America's enemies since the Korean War. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::::That's ''Guilt By Association'', and it is most certainly a fallacy. NAMBLA most certainly has not been ''leading'' the anti-war movement. Have you seen any news reports about NAMBLA organizing anti-war protests? I sure haven't. Not on Fox or otherwise.
::::Then again, you might be implying that the reason why NAMBLA is anti-war is because Falwell accused them of being responsible. As he didn't even mention NAMBLA in the quote, I find this hard to believe. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 07:14, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Past tense ==

Someone who actually sees "edit" rather than "view source" on the article page should go around and change all the verbs to past tense so that instead of saying he does something they say he did something. The man is dead. He's not doing any of those things anymore. [[User:Nakedtruth|Nakedtruth]] 23:06, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Name ==

Add: Jerry Laymon Falwell Sr.

Thank you

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:58, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== External links ==

Add also a link:

External Links: [http://www.falwell.com/ J. F. Website]

And a pic: Image:Falwell.jpg|right [[Image:Falwell.jpg|right]]

( source:http://www.falwell.com/index.cfm?PID=13737 )

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:03, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I would think that this first image is too wide for use on a CP page and should be cropped. However, I haven't checked the copyright so: 
1. Is it legal in the first instance? 2. Would any license be invalidated by cropping?
[[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 23:26, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==

Can this picture be added to the article. I uploaded it before I realized the page was locked.

[[Image:Jfalwell.jpg|thumb|250px]]

==Edit protected requests==

1. Please put a section header before the third paragraph in the "Controversy" section called "Personal", or something else appropriate - neither his marriage, nor homegoing were controversial

2. Please add proper attribution information to the image description page. The image copyright is owned by "Liberty University" and it has been released under the GFDL.

Thank you. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 14:27, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

Balance sheet

2007-05-31T17:42:13Z

Trajsmith: Balance Sheet

A Balance Sheet is a fundamental accounting statement that provides a 'snapshot' of an entity's assets, liabilities and equity at a point in time.

It is called such as the total assets are equal to the total liablities plus equity.

Any meaningful analysis of a company's finances must include a review of the balance sheet, income statement and statement of changes in financial position.

However, certain meaningful ratios can be gleaned from the balance sheet alone, such as Debt/Equity ratio, Working Capital ratio.

Fundamental to proper balance sheet preparation is a rigorous "cut-off". That is, if a balance sheet has a date of November 30, it must not include cash received on December 1.

Accredited Investor

2007-05-31T17:31:14Z

Trajsmith: Accredited Investors

Companies who wish to sell their shares, but not register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) can do so by selling on to Accredited Investors.

Such investors are defined by Rule 501 of Regulation D to include institutional investors, such as pension funds and corporations. For an individual person to be considered as such, they must:

1. Have a net worth (together with their spouse, if applicable) of $1 million.

2. Have an income exceeding $200,000 in the two most recent years or joint income with their spouse of $300,000 in the same period.

Talk:Laura Bush

2007-05-16T00:55:32Z

Trajsmith: Is this fair?

Listen, I am no fan of President Bush, and know little of the First Lady. Now, while the bit about her car accident many years ago is, I believe, true, it should hardly rate 25% of her bio. Come on, conservatives, give a little more to one who, like Hillary, stands by her man.

Signed by a liberal who does not like gratuitous shots--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 20:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jerry Falwell

2007-05-16T00:44:32Z

Trajsmith: History will judge him harshly

Talk:Declaration of Independence

2007-05-10T18:22:51Z

Trajsmith: Four times is Frequently?

The statement is made: "Invoking the authority of God frequently throughout the document" I only see four: The reference in the opening sentence which refers to the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God" is the first. The second is that all men are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable rights (well, as long as they were White). Finally, the closing paragraph mentions the
Supreme Judge of the World and Divine Providence.

With the exception the Creator's endowment phrase, all seem to be somewhat perfunctory in nature; almost pro-forma.

But, I guess the four times in this document beats out the one reference in the Consititution.

Liability

2007-05-09T19:10:32Z

Trajsmith: Liability (an accounting view point)

This article considers liabilities as they exist in an entity from an accounting point of view.

A liability is a promise to pay money or provide services in the future. For example, when a company receives a shipment of, say, raw materials, it will record a liability to the vendor. If a product or service is paid for in advance, the seller will record a liability equal to the price of the product or service to be rendered in the future.

While many liabilities are known with precision, many others have to be accrued based on estimates. Insurance companies routinely estimate claims that will arise in the future from events that have already occurred. Most large companies make routine monthly estimates of costs for legal and outside accounting services, and accrue them during the year.

Liabilities can be current, being due within one year, or longer term. Examples of long term debt are bonds payable, and some long term notes. However, any portion of long term debt that is due within one year is shown separately as such on a balance sheet.

Talk:Biblical creation account

2007-05-08T03:35:11Z

Trajsmith: Whatever happened to the angel with the flaming sword?

"This does not, however, have anything to do with the Christian idea of the Three-in-One God, i.e. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, since the concept was unknown at the time." -- Not unknown to the Author, wouldn't you say? :-) This just strikes me as an odd thing to say on a site like this. The article needs work. Presumably the allegation of a contradiction in the second paragraph needs to be removed, too. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 01:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:It rather depends on who you think the author was, and why he (He?) made no reference to the concept anywhere in the Bible. As to the allegation of a contradiction, a contradiction is a contradiction, whether alleged or not, and if he (He?) made it, then perhaps he (He?) was not so infallible after all - or rather, whoever wrote it wasn't infallible, so presumably wasn't Him? In other words, test the theory against the facts, not the facts against the theory.--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Bwilliston is essentially correct. If God is the ultimate author, He would have known. It's also quite possible that Moses (if you accept him as the author) knew. An argument from silence is not a good argument. Regardless, for the article to state unequivocally that it was ''not'' the Triune God is putting a view as a fact.(1)

::I agree that the theory should be tested against the facts, but it is ''not'' a fact that the creation narrative in chapter 2 contradicts the narrative in chapter 1. It might be the view of some, but not a fact. Chapter 2 does not say that creation only took one day, and neither does it say that man was created before the animals. My Bible, for example, says (Genesis 2:19): "Now the LORD God ''had formed'' out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air." (my emphasis).(2)

::It's not a matter of chapter 2 unambiguously contradicting chapter 1, but of how one interprets the meaning of the original Hebrew text.(3)

::Frankly, this article makes Wikipedia look good. I'll admit that it's early days for this article, however.(4)
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:To take each of my inserted annotations in order:

:(1) Why not ask the Jews, whose scriptures they are, rather than argue backwards from post-biblical Christian dogma, arrived at only after much argument within the early Church? I think you might find that they disagree with you and express their usual amazement at the things that Christians somehow manage to read into ''the Jewish'' scriptures!

:(2) KJV reads it as 'the LORD God formed': NEB as 'So God formed': the Jerusalem Bible as 'Yahweh God fashioned'. The ''Blue Letter Bible'''s presentation of the original Hebrew at [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=4&version=KJV#4] and their analysis of the tense at [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tense.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=4&strongs=8851] show that this is correct. (All four also make it clear that at 2:18-19 the animals were created ''after'' man existed - in fact, as the ''Blue Letter Bible'' tense-analysis reveals, the Hebrew indicates ''specifically'' that Adam was asked to name the animals ''as they were being created''). So it looks as if you are using a 'one-off' such as the NIV, whose translators, only too aware of the anomaly, have surreptitiously introduced their own 'interpretation' into the text so as to justify what they want the text to say! They do it elsewhere, too. Naughty, naughty! ;)

:(3) Absolutely, as I just said! Or rather, a matter of of what the original Hebrew text actually says! In chapter one, the six 'days ' in question are ''yom''. In chapter two, verse 4 refers to 'the day (''yom'' again) that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens'. Therefore, unless the word ''yom'' has somehow changed its meaning in the meantime, chapter two is speaking of a ''one-day'' Creation. Either that, or the 'days' in chapter one are not really 'days' at all. Make up your mind. Or is the Bible literally true only when you want it to be? ;)

:(4) Ain't it just?! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Early days with no way to edit. Sigh. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 16:35, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Replying to Petrus:
::#* I reject that they are exclusively the Jewish scriptures. They tell the early history of ''the world'', which means your and my history, and the Old Testament points forwards to the Messiah, which, if Christians are correct, was Jesus Christ. That is, your claim that they are the Jewish scriptures to the exclusion of others, is based on the presumption that Jesus is ''not'' the promised Messiah. I, of course, reject that presumption.
::#* As far as I know, even the Jews consider God to be the ultimate Author.
::#* In any case, your response doesn't answer my main point, that it is improper for the article to state as fact that it is ''not'' the Triune God.
::# I think you malign the integrity of the NIV translators too readily. I agree that many other translations don't translate it that way, but neither do they explicitly state that man was created before the animals. That is a case of reading the order of narration as the order of creation. Chapter 1 is clearly a chronological sequence, but chapter 2 is also clearly a focusing in on Adam and Eve, and is not presented as a chronological sequence. Additionally, if you read the two chapters as a single account rather than two separate and potentially contradictory accounts, then clearly the mention in chapter 2 of the creation of the animals is a reference back to them being created in chapter 1, which is probably the line that the translators took and decided to make it clearer for the modern low-context western readers trying to read a document produced in a [http://www.creationontheweb.com/redirect.php?http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty20lb.html high-context] society.
::# Many words have more than one meaning, or more than one shade of meaning. If I said that ''in my father's '''day''', it took six '''days''' to drive across Australia, travelling only during the '''day''''', I have used the word ''day'' in three different ways. Yet you would understand the sentence clearly, because each of those different ways is clearly determinable from the context. When ''day'' or ''yom'' is used with a number, it means an ordinary day, not an extended period of time. This is the case in Genesis. Just because Genesis 2:4 uses the same word (yom) as in chapter 1 does not indicate that it has the exact same meaning. (And in fact chapter 1 uses it—and ''defines'' it—in two different ways itself!). Chapter one uses the word with a number, indicating a normal day (not to mention other indicators, such as each having a morning and an evening). The same does not apply to Genesis 2:4, which has no such context.
::Regardless of all the above, I don't expect the article to state as fact that the view I have is the correct one. But neither should it put an opposing view as the correct one, and that is the whole point I'm trying to make. Can you agree on that at least?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but only in that the article should not represent any view at all. Instead, it should simply reflect what the accounts actually say. Thus regarding your specific points:

1. Before Jesus's day, they were the Jewish scriptures. During Jesus' day, they were the Jewish scriptures. Why they should suddenly have changed to something else I can't imnagine. The Jews assumed that Moses, not God, had written them - that's why the New Testament refers repeatedly to 'the Law of Moses' (i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament as written by Moses). Moses was a Jew.

2. Please refer to the grammar. The word 'formed' in Genesis 2:19 is specifically in the ''imperfect'' tense - i.e. it refers to an action that is not yet complete, corresponding to English 'was forming'. It is therefore emphatically not a 'reference back'. This has nothing to do with 'interpretation' -- it's what the Hebrew actually says. In other words (I deduce), as God created each animal, he brought it to Adam to be named. It makes perfect anecdotal sense (though you'll note that I didn't actually say so).

3. Your point about ''yom'' may have some merit, but your definition based on whether the word appears with a number or not is pure invention on your part, as you know perfectly well! Still, if you're happy with that... --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:I don't believe that the article can not reflect any views at all. If the article simply "reflect[s] what the accounts actually say", it would simply contain the text of Genesis.(O)
:# The New Testament also refers to all of Scripture being "God-breathed", or inspired by God, meaning that the human authors wrote (probably in their own words) what God wanted them to write. So believing that Moses wrote Genesis does not preclude God being the ultimate author. What do you mean by "Jewish scriptures"? Do you mean that they were written by Jews? That they are owned by Jews? That Jews have exclusive rights to interpretation of them? I would argue that they belong to God, who has given them to ''all'' mankind.
:# Not being a Hebrew scholar, I can't argue the tense of the word with you. However, the fact remains that some people do translate it as "had formed". I've never seen any criticism of the NIV translators for translating it that way, and the TNIV retains that translation. There is also at least one other translation that, although translating it as "formed", has a footnote that it can be read as "had formed". There is also another explanation, that being that God did in fact create some animals after Adam, but that this was a separate lot of animals to the ones that he had created earlier. The descriptions are a little different.
:# I'm astounded that you think that you can read my mind to know that I invented that explanation. The problems are that (a) you ''can't'' read my mind, and (b) I did ''not'' make that up.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

O. No, an article reflecting 'what the accounts actually say' can equally well be a good paraphrase. It would need to be, since otherwise, in order to reflect what the Bible says, Conservapedia would have to abolish itself and simply reprint the Bible!

1. Once again you're arguing backwards from Christian New Testament and post-biblical dogma. If, for example, I were to argue ''now'' that Stonehenge was built by aliens ''then'', this wouldn't entitle me to insist that all the archaeological literature on it was written by aliens too - even though I would probably have to. Nobody, even in Jesus' day, insisted that the scriptures were written by God. They were the Jewish national scriptures written by Moses, the prophets and a few others (some of whom, such as Job and occasionally David, were actually ''complaining at'' God!), and until the advent of Paul they were aimed specifically and exclusively at Yahweh's chosen people the Jews (which is presumably why, at Matthew 10:5, Jesus forbids his disciples to take his message to the gentiles). The words that you quote from Timothy 2, 3:16 merely mean that that he and others like him believed that the scriptures were inspired by God: it doesn't make either him or them infallible (now ''there's'' a circular argument for you!!).

2. I'm rather surprised, despite what I said earlier, that you are unaware that anybody has criticised the NIV for its patent twisting of the texts: you may care to refer to [[http://www.av1611.org/niv.html]], for example, which is pretty explicit on the subject, even though a right old rant! You would need to explore the reasons behind the other translations' 'alternative option': I suspect that they're merely acknowledging the less reputable efforts of Darby, the NIV etc.. As for your report of the suggestion 'that God did in fact create some animals after Adam, but that this was a separate lot of animals to the ones that he had created earlier', this is absolutely typical, I'm afraid, of people who insist that the Bible must be read literally, but who are then trapped by their own literalism into having to explain away the Bible's many and obvious self-contradictions with specious and, frankly, laughable 'logic' - such as the conflicting genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke (''Ah, but the one is traced through Joseph, the other through Mary!'' [it isn't, incidentally]), or the fact that in Mark 6:8 Jesus tells his disciples to take a stick, but in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3 he tells them not to (''Ah, but they were different lots of disciples!'' Pull the other one!). The very suggestion you cite, though, reveals that they at least noticed the anomaly!

3. OK, I accept that you didn't make it up. Apologies. Clearly it's ''somebody else's'' pure invention!

So where does that leave us? Well, the article, clearly, is strictly correct as it stands. If the words are taken literally (as most Conservapedians clearly expect them to be), then 'day' (''yom'') means what it says (and not what, on the basis of false interlinguistic analogy, you and/or others might manage to twist it into saying), and the order of creation is different in Genesis chapter 1 from that in Genesis chapter 2 (however much you and/or others may refuse to take the grammar as it stands and pretend that it is other than it is). Reputable (and certainly non-denominational) biblical scholars (see [[Bible]]) have long since spotted this problem and advanced a suitable explanation, but unfortunately you, because of your prior beliefs, will be unable to accept it. If you refuse to take off the blindfold - or the star-spangled blinkers, it that's what it is - I'm afraid there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, especially as the article is locked anyway!

So shall we leave it there? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:# I fail to see the logic of the Stonehenge analogy. And your argument seems to be of the form that if they didn't realise at the time that the Scriptures were inspired by God, they weren't.
:# I'm quite aware that there are those who criticise the NIV. I was referring to specific criticism of the particular translation in Genesis 2 that we have been discussing. I haven't seen any criticism of that. As for explaining away things, just as I remind you of that, you remind me of those that prefer to see apparent contradictions as real contradictions instead of determining if they are just apparent and not real. Many claimed contradictions are not actually contradictions at all, if you are logical about it. How do you know that Luke's genealogy is not traced through Mary?
:# You continue to describe my explanation of the use of the word "yom" as an invention, but offer no rationale as to why it is wrong. Surely you don't disagree that words can be used in different ways?
:Insinuating that I'm closed minded is not the appropriate way to debate an issue.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Ah -- so, if words can be used in different ways, you're admitting that the Bible doesn't have to be read absolutely literally after all, then? Well, there's progress for you! That opens up a whole field of possibilities, then -- such as that Genesis doesn't have to be read as factual history at all, but can be read as typical Middle Eastern explanatory myth instead...

As for Luke's genealogy, I know it's not traced through Mary because it says it's traced through Joseph - which is pretty odd, by the way, seeing that he's not supposed to have been Jesus' father in the first place.

Still, let's not open up a whole new can of worms, eh? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too late, you've already opened that can of worms. But rather than digest it (yuk), I'll just say that this is an example of preferring to see a problem rather than not looking to see if there is an explanation.
:As for reading the Bible absolutely literally, sure, I'll admit that, because I never said that I do read it all literally. Like most creationists, I recognise the existence of metaphor, parable, poetic language, etc., and try to read the Bible the way that the authors intended it to be understood. So Genesis 1 is actual (literal) history, but other parts are not. But that doesn't mean that we can interpret any part we want in any way we want. We still have to accept that words carry specific meanings, and understand how they are used. Thus there is no need to take the word "yom" in Genesis 2 as literal, because the context indicates a non-literal use of the word. But the context of Genesis 1 indicates that it is to be taken literally. There's nothing at all unreasonable about that. We do that all the time with language, as I tried to illustrate above with the sentence about travelling across Australia. To suggest, as you seem to be, that one has to take every occurrence of a word literally or not at all literally is absurd.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::But what makes you think that Genesis 1 was intended to be understood as literal history? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::* Because that's the style of the language. It doesn't conform to the style of poetry or metaphor, for example.
::* Because other Bible writers and Jesus refers to the events of Genesis as actual history.
::* Because that's what the experts say. Professor James Barr:
:::''...so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience ...''
::* See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/619 here].
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He may be right, but who the hell is Professor James Barr? If Jesus and the other Bible writers believed in the Genesis account (as in Abraham, Moses, Daniel and a whole lot of other stuff), as they clearly did, it is perfectly clear from the by-now well-established facts of the case (geological, paleontological, biological, historical, archeological, geographical) that they were ''wrong'' (refer, for example, to Finkelstein and Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'') - a fact which has serious consequences, of course, for traditional Christian belief, though in no way diminishes the nobility of Jesus' initiative (see Schonfield, ''The Passover Plot'', Lemesurier, ''The Armageddon Script'' etc. etc.)! But then perhaps they were aware - as certain other people evidently are not - of the difference between ''fact'' and ''truth''!

As for the context of chapter 2 of Genesis, dear Philip J. Rayment, the one you adduce is one supplied by ''you'' (i.e., something like 'the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and therefore cannot possibly disagree with itself'). That is the whole problem - and context is all in language! In actual fact, Chapter 2 doesn't suggest in the slightest degree that its own, particular context is meant to be any more or less literal than that of chapter 1. It's simply (and fairly obviously) a different account, as nearly all reputable academic scholars agree -- at least those who are not wedded to some particular Christian denomination (in which case their judgement may justly be regarded as potentially warped).

That context includes the ''linguistic'' context, BTW. Thus, in English, you can, as you point out, say, 'In my father's day' - but, curiously and possibly illlogically, you cannot say 'in the day when my father was alive': in that case you would have to say 'in the day'''s''' when my father was alive'. Unless, of course, you're referring to a particular day! Yet it is precisely that formulation that the KJV's English translation of Genesis 2:4 uses - and it is the self-same formulation as it uses at Genesis 5:1, which apparently ''is'' referring to a particular day!

So you're on distinctly shaky ground, PJR, since chapter 2 ''does indeed'' suggest that creation took place on a single day, even if you would suggest (without the slightest evidence, other than in the context of anachronistic Christian dogma that ''you'' insist on superimposing on the text) that its 'day' is of a different order and length to those listed in chapter 1. But that's entirely typical of the childish squirming, designed to avoid facing the facts, that gives fundamentalism a bad name, I'm afraid - so it's just as well that you didn't invent it!

Still, at least you appear to agree that, since 'words can be used in different ways', the 'days' in chapter one could perfectly well be days of other than 24 hours - always provided, of course, that nobody imposes a context of their own on it. At least, that would appear to be the upshot of your logic.

Meanwhile, I have better things to do with my time than continue to argue about such idiocies, so... 'Bye! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Barr was Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture at Oxford University.
: Whether or not the Bible is wrong (and I don't believe it it) is a separate question entirely.
: Why is it wrong to adduce that the Bible cannot disagree with itself? That seems to be a ''presumption'' on your part that you are stating as a conclusion.
: I agree that Genesis 2 is historical as well, rather than metaphorical. But that doesn't preclude using words in a non-literal way, such as "in so-and-so's day".
: So scholars that believe it to be a single (or at least complementary) account are "warped", but scholars who don't are apparently reliable? Come on, that's prejudging who to believe based on what conclusions they come to.
: You will not find "yom" used with a number, with "morning", with "evening", or with "morning and evening", anywhere else in the Bible except to mean a normal day. So no, the use of "day" in Genesis 1 cannot be interpreted as other than a normal day.
: And thanks for the (un)civil way that you've been discussing this. Not.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fascistic editing==
Why has the article now been arbitrarily edited in favour of the creatonist standpoint and then re-locked, with no opportunity for anybody to redress the balance? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That is not arbitrary editing, it is the avoidance of [[liberal]] bias.
:[[User:JC|JC]] 09:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

By arbitraily imposing ''il''liberal bias, you mean? Something tells me that's the sort of thing Hitler approved of! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, I thought that last edit was a bit, umm, liberal: "''Some'' have ''suggested'' that creation occurred about 4000 BC."? No, ''many'' have ''claimed'' it. Lightfoot and Ussher were only two of many, and Ussher, at least, did more than just "suggest" it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Whatever happened to the angel with the flaming sword? ==

Reckon the flood put it out, but was it never re-lit?--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 23:35, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Asset

2007-05-07T18:08:45Z

Trajsmith: Asset (Accoun ting)

In Accounting, an Asset is a thing with future value. In certain cases, such a 'thing' may be intangible. Assets can be categorized in various ways:

Monetary Assets are those that consist of cash or will be converted to cash. An example of a monetary asset is Accounts Receiveable.

Nonmonetary assets will not be converted to cash. Machinery and Equipment owned by a company will be shown as an asset, but such assets are not normally converted to cash.

Assets may also be considered as Current or Non-current. Theoretically, a Current asset is one that will be converted to cash (directly or indirectly) within the business entity's operating cycle. Practically speaking, Current Assets are always measured as being due within one year.

Non-current or Long Term assets extend beyond one year. The previous example of Machinery and Equipment also applies here, but not all Long Term Assets are non-monetary or vice versa.

When assets become impaired, their value must be adjusted. If a company holds an account receivable from another company that goes bankrupt, the receivable must be written down to the amount (which is very possibly zero) that will eventually be received.

Entrepreneurship

2007-05-07T17:39:55Z

Trajsmith: changed 'company' to 'business venture' as corporate form is not relevant here.

'''Entrepreneurship''' is the ability to organize a profitable new business venture. Someone skilled in entrepreneurship is called an entrepreneur.

[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association

2007-05-05T17:34:15Z

Trajsmith: Why is this in Anti War and Liberal categories?

Archives: [[/archive 1|01]]
----
Earlier there was a user who tried several times to add a link to NAMBLA's website in the article of that name, and this user was given tacit support and approval by others for his actions. There are people in Conservapedia, including Andy, who '''WILL NEVER TOLERATE''' any site that advocates child molesting, and I don't want to hear the excuses as to NAMBLA's so-called intentions. If I see anyone post a link to a child-molesting site, I will assume they support child molesting and they will never be allowed in this website again. If I see direct evidence that such an editor may be more involved in child molesting then providing a link, then Andy will be notified as well as federal and state law enforcement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Agree 100 percent. There is no need for a "link" to that site. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:: NAMBLA site visitors are automatically put on the FBI watch list, FYI. Good move, Karajou! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:00, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I beleive the old discussion should be properly archived or restored, and not deleted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I didn't see a quote about it in the article, but I did in recent changes, so keep in mind it's not a "gay activist group." It's a homosexual pedophilia activist group. Gay pedophilia is about as different from homosexuality as straight pedophilia is from heterosexuality :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:39, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:That is incorrect; [[Harry Hay]] the "founder of the gay movement in America" [http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm] in this cite is compared with Thomas Jefferson, [[Emma Goldman]], and Rosa Parks. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

''Restored text from Archive.''

This source, ''The American Spectator'' Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 When Nancy Met Harry], Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006, exrtracted reads as follows,
:"Harry Hay was a fierce advocate of man/boy love. While ''The Chronicle'' simply ignored Harry's views, the North American Man/Boy Love Association was only too delighted to put up a collection of Harry's views on the need for young boys to have older men as sexual partners. Here's just a sample taken from a talk at a New York University forum sponsored by a campus gay group in 1983.

:Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

The text of this conference speech in full is available on NAMBLA's website. I'd say this goes beyond issue advocacy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT) and [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:10, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:Equating gays with NAMBLA, though, is still incorrect, even if one guy was both.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::It is not simply "one guy", it is the recognized founder of the organized gay rights movement in the US, who coincidently had been a [[CPUSA]] member since the 1930s. And if you haven't heard by now, this particularly is my area of speciality, which I can proudly assert is the cause of my banning from WP. WP:Cold War Portal carries a few articles I authored, one of which is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Soviet_espionage_in_the_United_States History of Soviet Espionage in the United States]. This is an unwritten chapter, the subversive influence of the homosexual movement on American politics and society. I am greatful to User:JeffersonDarcy, becuase I had no reason to ever pursue this on my own, but when I found the precious little nugget about how Harry Hay had been a CPUSA member since the 30s, it filled in a lot of gaps. And we see now how this socially and politically subversive organization took the leadership role in March of 2003 of the anti-War movement. We have living history here that must be documented. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

A lot of movements have people in their fold they're not proud of. Ted Haggart, for one. But the fact that the founder was a creepy doesn't mean the movement isn't still valid, and right.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:36, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Good. I hope you see the broader picture. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:09, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem with the article. Indeed, I would like to see all these guys locked up for good. However, it is shameful of you to categorize the article into the Anti-war movement and Liberal Activists. While some of these guys are probably anti-war and liberal, I suspect some are exactly the opposite. Shame on you.--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:34, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Revenue

2007-05-05T17:18:08Z

Trajsmith: Maybe this is wrong place, but I added an accounting perspective.

Revenue is the price of a good times the quantity sold. It is a seller's overall income before subtracting costs.

The graph of the total revenue of a demand curve which is a strait line, with price on the y axis and quantity on the x axis has the shape of a parabola opening downward. It starts at zero revenue, when quantity is zero and ends at zero revenue when price is zero.

In accounting, Revenue also includes the price of services sold (a CPA's fees, for example) and can also include the percentage of completion method whereby Revenue is recognized based on the completion of certain milestones in a long term project.

Theoretically, revenue should only be recongized when the following criteria are met:

1. The final price can be reasonably determined
2. The costs associated with producing this revenue can be easonably determined.
3. The product or process is complete (or milestones have been reached)
4. There is reasonable expectation of payment from the customers within normal terms of trade.

Many accounting abuses by corporations are the result of improper revenue recongition. These can be from relatively simple frauds, such as recording a sale where the product has not been shipped, to relatively complex frauds involving manipulation of asssumptions under percentage of completion methodologies.

[[Category:Economics]]

Jude the Apostle

2007-05-05T16:59:53Z

Trajsmith: Changed "lost causes" to "hopeless causes" - a subtle but important distinction

Jude the Apostle, also known as Thaddaeus, was probably a relative of Jesus. Jude was also a brother of the Apostle James the Lesser.

He wrote one of the letters or epistles included in the New Testament, directed towards eastern churches and particularly the Jewish converts. Like all Apostles, Jude himself was originally Jewish.

Jude was martyred in Armenia while it was under the control of Persia. Armenia did not convert to Christianity until the third century. He spread Christianity to Samaria, Judea, Syria, Idumaea, Mesopotamia and Lybia.

In the Gospels, Jude was the Apostle who asked Jesus during the Last Supper why Jesus would not show Himself to the entire world after the resurrection.

In some Christian churches Jude (St. Jude) is the patron saint of hopeless causes, or very difficult circumstances. In some cultures he is known as 'double-checking Thaddaeus' - some apocryphal works recorded that he was assigned the task of ensuring all disciples were aware of what was required of them. Do not confuse Jude with the traitor Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus.

Talk:1983 United States Embassy bombing

2007-05-05T16:39:55Z

Trajsmith: Cut and Run

Is it just me, or does the 2nd reference not go anywhere?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Erm, it goes to the second citation in the "references" section. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::i mean the link to the site[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Cut and Run ==

If I recall, Reagan withdrew our troops from the area shortly thereafter. Another example of Defeatist Cut and Run Republicans!--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 12:39, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Palindrome

2007-05-04T21:04:01Z

Trajsmith: "Otis is my personal favourite

A palindrome is a word, phrase, sentence, or number that can be read the same backwards and forwards.

==Examples==
*Racecar
*A man, a plan, a canal, Panama
*1858581
*Lived on Decaf, faced no Devil
*Star buttons, not tub rats
*Able was I, ere I saw Elba.
*Sit on a potato pan, Otis
[[category:linguistics]]

Market capitalization

2007-05-04T20:59:11Z

Trajsmith: Changed "shares owned" to "shares issued"

Market capitalization is the total value of the stock of a public company, as in the current price-per-share times the total number of shares issued. The largest market capitalization is usually a few hundred billion dollars. Market capitalization varies daily as stock values fluctuate.
[[category:economics]]

Talk:Accounting

2007-05-04T19:17:40Z

Trajsmith: I still think Centuries is more appropriate.

Hi trajsmith, nice job of what you call "minor beefing up". The article is much, much better now. One tiny quibble - I changed the double entry thing back to "millennia", as it was invented by the Babylonians. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the compliment. I think you should revert to centuries. while I am familar with Babylonian story (I am not sure I believe, but that is not the point), the first text on the subject was by an Italian monk around the time of da Vinci (Pacioli?) although there is some evidence of earlier use by Florentine merchants. So, for widespread use, I think centuries is more valid than millenia.

Securities and Exchange Commission

2007-05-04T19:12:46Z

Trajsmith: Corrected one error and added to substance of article

The '''''Securities and Exchange Commission''''' is a regulatory agency created during the [[New Deal]] in order to minimize abuse by corporate management of a company's shareholders. While the relatively recent abuses epitomized by Enron, and the more recent share option back dating scandals by already very rich executives demonstrate, an entity such as the SEC remains as necessary as other types of police and regulatory agencies.

All public corporations must file various reports with SEC on a regular basis. An annual report, such as the Form 10-K contains extensive information about the company including full financial statements as well as managment discussion of results. Other SEC filings inlcuded the Form 10Q (a summarized version of the 10K done on a quarterly basis) and 8K's where companies must disclose material information about it's activities. All such reports are availabe to the public through the SEC website, and most corporate websites allow access to these reports as well.

Goodwill

2007-05-04T18:50:41Z

Trajsmith:

Goodwill can have a number of meanings but this brief article contemplates it's meaning as a financial asset.

Goodwill that appears on a balance sheet is always 'purchased' Goodwill. That is, it is not generated by some mechanism internal to the company and then created as an asset.

Goodwill normally arises from the purchase of a business where the price paid exceeds the fair value of the net assets acquired. Consider the purchase of an extremely profitable business that had a very low asset base. If the buyer paid, say, $2 million for a company whose net assets where only worth $1.3 million, the $700 thousand difference would be treated as goodwill.

On a strictly theoretical basis, Goodwill is the present value of the superior earnings stream of a business, capitalized in perpetuity. Put another way, you would only pay $2 million for a business with assets of $1.3 million if you thought you would make a lot more money than that sort of investment would normally generate.

Management must review the asset value of Goodwill every year to determine if it is still a legitimate asset. If it is not, the asset must either be reduced or written off completely. Reverting to the previous example, suppose the business purchased had a competitor that opened a location just across the street, and that ongoing profits would be reduced. Management would be required to reduce, if not write off completely, the value of Goodwill.

Goodwill

2007-05-04T18:49:36Z

Trajsmith: Goodwill (as a Business Asset)

Goodwill can have a number of meanings but this brief article contemplates it's meaning as a financial asset.

Goodwill that appears on a balance sheet is always 'purchased' Goodwill. That is, it is not generated by some mechanism internal to the company and then created as an asset.

Goodwill normally arises from the purchase of a business where the price paid exceeds the fair value of the net assets acquired. Consider the purchase of an extremely profitable business that had a very low asset base. If the buyer paid, say, $2 million for a company whose net assets where only worth $1.3 million, the $700 thousand difference would be treated as goodwill.

On a strictly theoretical basis, Goodwill is the present value of the superior earnings stream of a business, capitalized in perpetuity. Put another way, you would only pay $2 million for a business with assets of $1.3 million if you thought you would make a lot more money than that sort of investment would normally generate.

Managment must review the asset value of Goodwill every year to determine if it is still a legitimate asset. If it is not, the asset must either be reduced or written of completely. Reverting to the previous example, suppose the business purchased had a competitor that opened a location just across the street, and that ongoing profits would be reduced. Management would be required to reduce, if not write off completely, the value of Goodwill.

Accounting

2007-05-04T18:39:20Z

Trajsmith: Very minor 'beefing up]

'''Accounting''' is the process of recording and summarizing [[business]] transactions, both internal to a company, and external transactions with customers and suppliers, and also to create any reports required by management, creditors, shareholders and government agencies, such as the [[IRS]] or [[SEC]].

Generally accounting can be split into two major categories - Management and Financial, although different terms are used for both. As the name implies, Management accounting is used by the management of an organization. It includes everything from highly summarized reports, to detailed cost analyses. Financial Accounting usually refers to external reporting process, which is primarily for the benefit of the shareholders, although creditors, and sometimes customers, require financial reports.

People who perform this task are called accountants. This term is very broad in that will include a part time bookkeeping clerk or the Chief Financial Officer of a large public company. Accountants may obtain a professional designation, Certified Public Accountant, or CPA, which confers certain rights and obligations.

For centuries, accounting has employed what is called "double entry bookkeeping", in which every transaction is entered as both a debit and credit. This is fundamental to the Accounting Equasion which is Assets - Liabilities = Equity.

While accounting used to be done by hand, on paper, it is much more frequently done using computer programs today.

Talk:Poverty

2007-05-04T17:51:45Z

Trajsmith: Question

So, Jesus taught about loving and helping the poor. He didn't say anything about abortion and noted that the peacemakers are blessed. He preferred the company of working folks rather than the elite of the day. Does this mean Jesus was a liberal?--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Yorkshire Pudding

2007-05-03T17:44:40Z

Trajsmith: changed the eating of the pud' to with lunch rather than before. Also, Sunday lunch is probably lamb.

Yorkshire Pudding is a delicacy made from [[flour]], [[egg]]s, [[milk]], [[dripping]] and a pinch of [[salt]] <ref> http://www.york-united-kingdom.co.uk/localinfo/yorkshirepudding/</ref>. As its name suggests, it originates in [[Yorkshire]] <ref> One of the oldest recipes for [[Yorkshire] [[pudding]] can be found in 'The Art of Cookery' by Hannah Glasse, first published in 1796. </ref>
, and is traditionally eaten with roast [[beef]] Sunday lunch.

[[Image:YPBoatRace.jpg| right|200px|thumb|One of the competitors in the Millennium race]]
An event of long standing is The Great Yorkshire Pudding Boat Race. <ref> For an account of the millennium run of this event see: http://www.theshed.co.uk/independent.html</ref>. This event requires competitors to construct their own boats. The recipe for one boat comprises 50 eggs, four bags of flour, 25 pints of milk, beaten and baked, lined with industrial foam-filler and given its characteristic glossy finish with layers of of yacht [[varnish]].

The picture here depicts a tense moment from the event as seen from the pond-side, including an unfortunate sinking in the background. The frantic paddling of the leaders echoes the Herculean stirring that goes into each boat's creation.

<references/>

Value Added Tax

2007-05-02T18:01:12Z

Trajsmith: I removed line about VAT subsidy. It is factually incorrect.

A '''Value Added Tax''' (VAT) is a national [[sales tax]] paid by companies based on the value they add to a [[product]] at various stages of production or [[distribution]].

The tax is paid at each stage of production, but a credit is received for tax paid on inputs. For example, assuming a VAT rate of 10%, if a company sold its product for $100.00 and the cost of inputs to make that product were $80.00, they would have to pay $10.00 less an input credit of $8.00 to account for the VAT paid by their suppliers.

==See Also==

[[Taxation]]

Saskatchewan

2007-04-30T18:39:21Z

Trajsmith: Added a bit on Population

The name '''Saskatchewan''' is derived from the Cree word kisiskâciwanisîpikikimasiy meaning ''swift-flowing [[river]].'' Saskatchewan is a province of [[Canada]] between [[Alberta]] and [[Manitoba]]. [[Mineral]] resources include world-class deposits of [[potash]] and [[uranium]] as evidenced by cities with names like ''Uranium City''.

Saskatchewan's geography includes [[prairie]]s, tree-covered [[plain]]s, [[forest]]s, and [[taiga]]. The climate is continental, characterized by large seasonal [[temperature]] ranges and low [[precipitation]]. European contact with Indian peoples occurred during the [[fur]] trade era, and increased when agricultural settlement began in the late 19th century. In the early 20th century, that settlement history produced a largely agrarian population concentrated on [[farm]]s and in communities across the prairie.
In 2006, provincial Gross Domestic Product was over $36 billion. Saskatchewan has what is called a "wheat economy" as most of its exports are agricultural.

The 2006 population of Saskatchewan was 985 thousand people. It's largest city is Saskatoon with 202 thousand, followed by Regina with 180 thousand people. The cities then get much smaller with only two having more than 30 thousand people; Prince Albert at 34 thousand and Moose Jaw with 32 thousand.

[[Category:Canada]]

Talk:Gomorrah

2007-04-30T17:59:41Z

Trajsmith: Estimate of how many killed?

Iam not a biblical scholar but the passage about Lot's wife seems incorrect.

Quotations from Genesis

And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.

And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

The reason that Lot's wife was killed was that she turned around, not for her admiration of the lifestyle--[[User:AvengingAngel|AvengingAngel]] 19:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Estimate of how many killed? ==

Has anyone estimated how many people God killed in Sodom and Gomorrah? How many of them were pregnant women?--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Empire State Building

2007-04-27T18:05:04Z

Trajsmith: But there was only $1 million in damage

== But there was only $1 million in damage ==

That was a lot of dough in 1945--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 14:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Value Added Tax

2007-04-27T17:58:29Z

Trajsmith: Not quite correct - a few changes.

A '''Value Added Tax''' (VAT) is a national [[sales tax]] paid by companies based on the value they add to a [[product]] at various stages of production or [[distribution]].

The tax is paid at each stage of production, but a credit is received for tax paid on inputs. For example, assuming a VAT rate of 10%, if a company sold it's product for $100.00 and the cost of inputs to make that product were $80.00, they would have to pay $10.00 less an input credit of $8.00 to account for the VAT paid by their suppliers.

It is controversial in [[global trade]] because many countries give domestic manufacturers rebates, or a [[VAT subsidy]], if they [[export]] those goods to other nations.

==See Also==

[[Taxation]]

Talk:Cruel and Unusual Punishment

2007-04-27T17:47:23Z

Trajsmith: Excessive fines

Concerning the "eye for an eye" line, the quote from Matthew is:
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

That is in fact contradictory to what the article claims.
--[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 19:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Not in the slightest, the biblical argument for the death penalty is described in wonderful detail here http://web.telia.com/~u15509119/ny_sida_6.htm I will update this article when I get time with a more detailed analysis.
--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
*My problem with it was the quote taken from Matthew, which clearly tells us not to abide by "eye for an eye." I spoke nothing of the rest of the Bible. -[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 14:55, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Doesn't the New Testament replace the Old Testament? Jesus' statement not to commit violence in response to violence trumps the quotation from Exodus. I don't think that can be used as a Biblical "seal of approval" for the death penalty.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I didn't use the Bible as a "seal of approval" for the death penalty, I merely observed that the Death penalty was compatible with the Bible. I also don't believe Jesus' statement forbids punishment, and what is the death penalty if not the severest punishment for the severest crimes?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 15:57, 8 March 2007 (EST)

And my point is that if you want to claim that the Bible is compatable with the death penalty, you need a different quote. Jesus' admonition directly refutes Exodus. That should be plainly obvious.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:02, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Excessive fines ==

So, the liberals have interpreted the prohibition of excessive fines as a, uh, prohibition of excessive fines. Mercy, I wish they would quit making those leaps!--[[User:Trajsmith|Trajsmith]] 13:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Saskatchewan

2007-04-26T17:55:25Z

Trajsmith: Second paragraph began with Manitoba, rather than Saskatchewan

Talk:Circle

2007-04-24T17:59:22Z

Trajsmith: No problem with the formula, but I have always wondered

why the formula for circumference is expressed as 2pi r rather than simply pi d? Anyone know?

Talk:Great Flood

2007-04-24T17:48:11Z

Trajsmith: Just Curious - how many were killed?

== General Discussion ==

Sorry, but your edit has created inaccuracies here. We need a REAL biblical scholar to help out.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::Palmd001, if there's anything Christian Religion is founded upon, it is the absolute right of each believer to make his individual decision to become Saved in the Blood of the Lamb. We're not Papists, here, we're Christians, and each of us is endowed by our Creator with the rights and abilities of Biblical Exegesis. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm sorry, are you suggesting that Roman Catholics are ''not'' Christians? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
::::They were once, before they burried the bible underneath centuries of accumulated doctrine, empty ritual, decree and politics. Any church which gives a human the authority to make holy decrees though cannot be truely respecting Christ, the only authority to do so. {{unsigned|BornAgainBrit}}

What I saw was amateurs working on a stub just to continue to make it a stub; there was no professionalism whatsoever. If you want to make edits here, either do the job well or don't do it at all. This page will be locked down until I'm done with it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:.''..was the last great event shared by mankind.'' This inaccuracy/opinion should be deleted. Also, Duns, please don't insult the Catholics in here. It is STRONGLY discouraged to insult others' religions here. SYSOP please make a note of it.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 19:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Palmd001, I am a Catholic. I'm Duns Scotus. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 09:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::What is the anti-Catholic slur being passed around? And where is your evidence that states the Flood was not the last event shared by mankind? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Its just above, Duns refers to Papists, a well known slur. As to the second, what is meant by "great event shared by mankind" It's just subjective. Was the Ressurection not a great event shared by mankind?[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 20:07, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::First, I didn't write the slur. Second, the flood had only eight survivors, Noah and his family, and from them spread the human race, as well as traditions about the flood being in every culture around the globe. That is the evidence. And third, Jesus resurrection was physically witnessed by a few Roman guards who fainted at the site, as well as upwards of 140 individuals with whom Jesus chose to show Himself. The Resurrection was THE greatest event in human history, but on the weekend it happened it didn't exactly make the 11 pm news. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Barnstar for Karajou ==

:::Karajou, your recognition of liberal media bias as early as 33 AD is an important marker for your assidious and often brilliant editing, here. I think you should be awarded a barnstar, or some sort of public marker of your essential rightness. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

=='Scientific' Evidence and its 'Value'==
This article needs more info on the geological evidence for the flood; additional cultural tales, and anything else of interest. This is NOT about Noah's Ark; that is another article in and of itself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Real evidence or made up stuff? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:22, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::The real stuff...not the stuff made up by scientists who can't stand the thought of God! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::By 'scientists who can't stand the thought of God,' do you mean the Christian geologists who first realized that a global flood was contradicted by the evidence? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, he means Satan inspired pagan atheists like Charles Lyell. His [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_modest_proposal Modest proposal] about geology was designed so that he could deny God and continue his baby eating ways. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

And just what exactly is your point for being involved with this article? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps he's interesting in conveying science rather than mythology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:I can't be involved in the article, its locked and being micromanaged (not macromanaged thats impossible) by an admin. Just like every other article on this site where the facts have a "liberal" bias. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Utility of the 'Scientific' 'Method'==

So am I. Perhaps either one of you can get me proof as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, by using the scientific method. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:What are you talking about? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm at a loss as to how dinosaur track fossilisation is relevent. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::It's extremely relevant! Fossilized tracks throughout the geological record are cleary incompatible with flood geology. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, no things can ONLY fossilize in a flood. Duh. I mean the only explanation for things like fossilized termite nests is that a wall of water hit them. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:14, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I know that, but I don't get why Karajou is asking me about it, or how it contributes in any way to his claims. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::This is not going to be a debate on what either one of us believe; my purpose is to improve this article, and I'm assuming that is your purpose here too. Therefore, I want evidence to post in this article as to how dinosaur tracks are fossilized, and I want it from an evolutionary point of view. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

In light of your claim that fossilized tracks are completely incompatable with flood geology, you're going to provide proof and sources for this. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'd guese it's got something to do with mud or lava filling in the indentations, or the sand or mud being compressed into rock. It isn't my forte. What I'm wondering is how YEC think it occured when the tracks are found on top of strata they believe was laid down during the flood. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Tracks.htm Some examples]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, read through this paper [http://www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/eocduwg6h2lbh2t2dodpuddbzjllqbuo2mnlqiu4b4iyfizk2ofo33fxize7onhybfyou7eebjjbacbn7fd67uzddhb/wright.pdf here]. Its a good starting point. Specific questions can be addressed as they arise. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is good; it explains the mainstream scientific view as to how these tracks were cast. It's going to be used here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::the ''schwerpunkt'' of the secularist perspective is what they call 'the geological time scale.' The secularists believe that, given enough time, anything is possible, not realizing that God can work wonders (ie, creating the entire universe) in less than a week. This is the real issue on which we must convince ourselves! If there is ample time, there can be fossilizations, and dinosaurs, and canyons and tectonic plates. If there is Biblical Time, and that means True Time, there can only be what is in God's Holy Word, which is All Truth and All Wisdom, Amen. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 14:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::k. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Now that the fossil tracks are done, I want scientific articles as to how dinosaur coprolites are preserved. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:If the dinosaurs were eating a largely vegetable diet, they could be passing stools with a high degree of cellulose, which might lend itself to better preservation. I'm not sure if the secularist 'scientists' have addressed dinosaur diet, but vegetarian dinosaurs might have been fed corn-on-the-cobb whilst on the ark. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 15:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I could be wrong, but isn't all that fossil stuff... well, worthless? It all boils down to 'X type of fossil can only form in the event of a sudden flood.' But there is nothing unusual about a flood - they happen all the time in many places, more rarely in most, and when considering the climate change in geological time its going to be a very common occurance. So all such arguments are quite usless unless they are able to distinguish between local and global flooding. No, if you were able to show that all of those fossils date to ''exactly the same time''...

:Precisely correct. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I follow the argument... I agree too. Making such easily-falsified arguments does nothing for our credability. Creationists need to stop endlessly repeating long-dismissed claims, a habbit which many seem unable to escape. Even the old themodynamics-disproves-evolution, perhaps the weakest of all, crops up constantly. Because, I think, even creationists are eager to believe anything that matches their existing views without critical thinking. - BornAgainBrit

== On Kant ==

:Anything I provide will be twisted around. Why bother....[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, it was not twisted around. I knew exactly what scientists have stated for years about this matter, and what they have said has been contradicted by plain observation. You are not at fault. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::*sigh*, okay, do as you see fit, do what you will. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 15:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Dr. John Bell, lived in the 1860s in England; brilliant physician who taught classes on medicine. His primary order of teaching was to make his students observe everything. One of his students was Arthur Conan Doyle, who would use that philosophy when he created Sherlock Holmes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::In order to truly understand Immanual Kant's approach to epistemology one must have a firm understanding of the dynamic between Platonic Ideals and the scholastic approach of the early church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I've never read Kant, as I don't believe in Kant. I'd rather believe in Kan! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Its okay, you shared a fact, I wanted to share one too. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You Kant critique pure reason. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::Kant was a fallen and imperfect worldly philosopher that secularists cite to concatenate examples of their sinful free will. Truth is not accessible through flawed human reason, only by recourse to the Divine Truth perfectly revealed in the Most Holy Bible. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Totally, half way through Critique of Pure Reason I was so like "oh my gosh this dude is SOOO fallen and imperfect." Then I realized it was the TRANSLATOR that was really the fallen one. I need to learn German I guess. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::You raise an important question, Tmtoulouse, which is that the translators of God's Holy Word (that wasn't written directly in English) were clearly divinely inspired, and their errors were prevented by Divine Providence. Obviously for secularist translations, no such inspiration is possible (or necessary). [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, which brings in this whole "English as a second language" stuff. English only all the way! If its good enough for God its good enough for the world! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
== On Truth ==

There is no Truth that does not stem from The Word, the Lord, and His Holy Writ. Remember John: In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. Remember that none can come to the Father except by Him. Remember also to not erect false idols before God, especially your own intellectual vanities. What is a man, except a snail before the void? Without Jesus, we are nothing. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Black Sea flood? ==

Would it be reasonable to add a bit in the 'evidence' section to the [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ Black Sea food theory]? This is geological evidence that there ''was'' a flooding event at about 7000 BC that would have been a flood of most of the known world at the time. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:42, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'll probably put that in there; I find it intriging myself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Here's the Greek flood story [http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html] for writing that bit. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:16, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks...and the article could use additional flood stories [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::::If you dig around, you'll see that prior to Ballard's theory the Russians had similar theories. However, the lack of translated papers and scientific exchange didn't get these theories to the west. Ballard did come up with his theory independently. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm using Ballard's because it's most familiar to readers today. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fossilization process==
I read years ago a book by Roy Chapman Andrews when I was a kid, titled "All ABout Strange Beasts of the Past" (I'm threatening the wife on getting the book via EBay!), and Andrews stated the time to become a fossil is about 5000 years. I looked on the web for citations from academia on the subject but cannot find any as of yet. Any other sources? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the time to fossilization is not all that relevant, as fossils are directly dated, as is the material they are found with, and unless God is just pulling our legs with physics, carbon dating is very accurate. Of course, God could take the role of the deceiver, or possible Satan could, and arrange strata and the laws of nature precisely to lead us to false conclusions.

Or not.

[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 22:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

At one point C-14 testing done on a live mollusk "proved" it had been dead for over 4000 years. I'd love to use that tidbit of info, but I have to have better sources than just someone's word...I want to know when it happened, where it happened, by whom, and what papers are available, otherwise it's little more than word-of-mouth. Same rule applies with the fossilization time. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html Something] a very quick Google search turned up:
{{QuoteBox|The notable exception involves certain mollusks, which get much of their carbon from dissolved limestone. Since limestone is very old it contains very little carbon-14. Thus, in getting some of their carbon from limestone, these mollusks "inherit" some of the limestone's old age! That is, the limestone carbon skews the normal ratio between C-12 and C-14 found in living things. No problem! If one dates such mollusks, one must be extra careful in interpreting the data. Not every mollusk shell presents such problems, and the dating of other material might yield a cross-check. Further study might even allow correction tables. The discovery has strengthened the carbon-14 method, not weakened it! By the way, shouldn't the creationist be worried over the old, carbon-14 age of the limestone? Why is it that limestone has so little C-14 in it?}}
:I'm not arguing for or against anything, but this attack on the C-14 dating method appears to be fairly weak. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:This is apparently based on [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634 this report]. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:16, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::I believe that many people who support the Creation via science have, in their zeal, skewed the facts on certain subjects, such as the C-14 cited above. Which explains why I want basic, solid, irrefutable facts here. No bullpuckey from either side of the fence. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::In addition to the point raised there, it should be noted that carbon dating is only supposed to be used on ''dead'' matter. A living organism exchanges carbon with the atmosphere; it is when the organism dies that the clock starts.

::No dating method is perfect. There are always assumptions involved, and limitations on the method. Whenever a creationist presents an anomalous result, the first thing to do is to check how and when the method is supposed to be applied, and make sure that it was applied correctly. It won't be. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:13, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's an argument of assumption that all creationists do that. It's got no place here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Certainly not something I'd add to the article, no. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The comment that C14 dating is only supposed to be used on dead matter shows a misunderstanding of how it works. The C12:C14 ratio is supposed to be constant while an organism is alive and exchanging C with the environment, but changes once the organism dies because it is no longer exchanging C. Thus any "age" measurement of a living organism should show that it's been dead for no time. Furthermore, any measurement of a living thing that shows its been dead for longer than no time (as for the mollusk) shows that there is something wrong with the principle I've just explained above. With the mollusk, there ''was'' something wrong with the principle, but if that circumstance can be isolated, the principle stands in other cases.

So the Talk.Origins answer is probably valid. The problem comes, mainly with other dating methods, when these sorts of explanations get invoked on an ad hoc basis when the results are not what the evolutionists expect. But that's another argument.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:What? How does an explanation of ''why'' C14 dating only works on dead matter show that stating that C14 dating only works on dead matter is a misunderstanding? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:43, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That was ''not'' an explanation of why it only works on dead matter. The point is that it should work on living matter also, except because it is used to determine the ''time since death'', it should return a zero result. If it returns a non-zero result, that indicates (sans other explanations), that there is a problem with the method. To simply dismiss a problem by asserting that it is not applicable to living things is not an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Phil, excuse my ignorance, but to me, your statement above makes no sense. Could you restate it please? You CAN "carbon date" living matter, but the answer will always be zero. Dead matter is the only matter that gives a non-zero number.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 09:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Your restatement (everything in your paragraph above after "Could you restate it please?") is exactly what I was saying. Perhaps I've misunderstood what people were saying on this page, but to summarise the line of argument (the relevant bits for this):
:::* Karajou mentioned that a ''living'' mollusk had been dated as being dead for 4,000 years, implying that the method was therefore unreliable.
:::* Tsumetai replied that the method should only be used on ''dead'' material, implying that the mollusk result is irrelevant.
:::* I replied that Tsumetai's reasoning was incorrect, as it ''can'' be used on living material, but ''should'' give a zero result, and that a non-zero result (e.g. the mollusk) ''does'' demonstrate that the method is unreliable (sans other explanations, such as the Talk.Origins one that Sid 3050 posted).
:::Is that clearer now?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Thank you, that is much clearer, and I see your point. And if enough evidence against carbon dating's reliability accumulates, it will become invalidated. I do not think your particular incident mentioned falls into the "deadly evidence" category, however. While living organisms should give a zero answer, it is not valid to measure living organisms, and also the error bar in carbon dating is already known to be about 5000 years, so it is not meant to be more accurate than that. Learning from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, give or take 5000 years is still helpful. With that error potential, a living organism could read 5000 years older or younger than it really is, without invalidating the method. It is not meant to be more exact than that. Your point is well taken though, and well made. If carbon dating were meant to be more accurate, then the results you gave would be "disturbing".[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 10:03, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I agree that it does not fall into the "deadly evidence" category. However, I think you must be getting carbon dating confused with something else. I'm not sure what the accuracy of carbon dating is, but it has to be much better than 5000 years, as it is routinely used to date things much younger than that. And you will never learn from carbon dating that something is about half a million years old, as the upper limit of its capability (after which there will be essentially no C14 left) is around 60,000 years (although I think I've also read 100,000 years somewhere). So the problem with the mollusks is ''not'' they they fall within the minimum resolution, but that it's carbon ratio was never in synch with the atmospheric ratio in the first place (assuming the Talk.Origins explanation is correct). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, Phil, Ill look up the particulars. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::OK, with carbon dating in particular (not more modern methods) the limit is about 60000 years because the half life of c-14 is about 6000 years, so, aftern that many years, too little is left in the sample to accurately measure. So, what we need now is more data on the case you mentioned, alternative explanations, and further examples.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 13:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::In the past, creationists have used this case of a live mollusk being subjected to a C-14 test and "proven" dead for 4000 years as a case against evolution and the anti-creation crowd. The only way I will allow this episode in the article is 1) I want the facts of this incident as stated above, and 2) I want to see evidence that scientists elsewhere have replicated this test, as scientists are supposed to do whenever they verify the results of any experiment to prove its validity. We have to be as authoritative as possible, and in doing so be fair to the reader as well. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I'd actually leave it out. It might be a nice side story for a dedicated C-14 dating article (Do we have one? I think we do, but I can't remember the name) to show the limits of the technique and how the environment has to be taken into account. It's not pro or contra the "Did it happen?" debate in my eyes and has little to nothing to do with the Great Flood. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I agree with that; this article is not the place for it, and I doubt that a Flood Geology article that I proposed below is either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article will be replaced ==

Independently of Karajou and others working on this article, I had been working on an article for this page, off-line. Karajou has given me the okay to ''replace'' the current article with mine (which is well advanced but not ready to post yet), so I recommend that people don't waste their time and effort editing this article in the meantime.

Of course it may ''not'' be a waste of time, because people may not like my version and the page may be reverted to what is currently there, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

However, I think that there should be a separate article on [[Flood Geology]], so any ideas that people have on things such as fossilisation processes could be put in a Flood Geology article rather than this article.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:When that happens, let's all read it carefully and weigh in on it here before any changes are made. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Done ===
Okay, I've "finished" my version and replaced the existing article with it.

As Karajou says, let's decided whether we want this new version or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Flood&oldid=63651 the version it replaced] before making alterations to it.

Although I have tried to write a "complete" article, I'm not for one moment suggesting that nothing more needs doing to it. I haven't included any pictures, and there's probably no reason the picture in the old one couldn't go in. Some sections could do with some further expansion, and a few more references could be included, as well as linking the Genesis references to an on-line Bible.

I have deliberately left out anything that would be better off in a [[Flood Geology]] article, other than a summary of the history of flood geology and what it's about. So there's nothing about fossils except a reference that Flood Geology believes that the flood caused most of the fossils.

The sections under [[Great Flood#Common themes of the Flood accounts]] are ''not'' meant to be comprehensive. ''Many'' more examples could be added, but would only serve to bulk out the article. In most cases, I have included references to three different flood accounts, and this could possibly be increased to four, but much more would be overdoing it, in my opinion. One or two more themes could be added, perhaps.

What do you all think? Yeah, I know the bibliosceptics won't like it, but you can't please everybody, can you? :-)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:09, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==I like it...but==
Ok, first, I'm not going to change it, except to put the picture back. I like the picture. The concept and structure of the whole is sound, so there is no need to change it as it stands. But there are two criticisms, and they are minor:
*Each subheading could benefit from additional detail, and I don't mean everyone should just write in a blurb. By expanding the detail I mean also that the quality of writing must be good, like we're submitting this for a grade at the university.
*I'd like to see the differences between the Genesis account and the other stories. It's the difference between who is in control and who is not.
And the pic. I want the pic! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Modern explanations could also be expanded; I know there are some here who disagree with the Bible, and they want to include evidence against it. I am for that, provided several things are observed:
*It has to be in a separate subheading, and the information written in must be clear, concise, and well-sourced. It also can't be opinionated, i.e. "well I think that's wrong", lines like that.
*Such information has to be the most common ones, the ones most familiar to scientists and readers.
*It also has to be understood that such information may have a rebuttal attached. Rebuttals must not change the layout of that they are rebutting, due to a desire for clarity on both sides. And likewise, these rebuttals must be clear, concise, and well-sourced.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I expected that the picture would go back. The ''only'' objection I have to that picture is that I don't want it to mislead anybody that the ark was like depicted in that picture. But as a renaissance depiction of the flood, it's fine.
:"Modern Explanations" is one of the sections that I alluded to that should be expanded. However, it should be expanded with other explanations for the flood ''stories'', not with other explanations for flood geology evidence, because this is not that article. For example, there was a TV show that postulated that the flood story originated as a flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, and that Noah was a beer trader who plied those rivers in his boat (or something like that). That could go in (if it's considered worthy enough). The bibliosceptics' reasons for considering the various flood stories to be unrelated local stories could be expanded a bit too.
:I'm not clear on what you mean by "differences between the Genesis account and the other stories". I think that the differences that are listed (e.g. Zeus being the cause in the Greek story) are clear enough already. Beyond that, the differences are not the point. The article takes the line that the non-Genesis stories (including the Gilgamish Epic) are actual histories of Noah's flood (accurately recorded in Genesis), but which have been corrupted over time, particularly with oral transmission. Highlighting the differences therefore amounts to highlighting the corruption, and I don't think that really needs any more emphasis than it already has. But perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you are getting at.
:Anyway, once we are settled that the new version will remain (are others going to comment?), you can start adding in bits and we can then see what you are getting at more clearly.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I like the structure and layout you provided here, and I believe it can be expanded on. Other subheadings can be added at the bottom, such as what I cited above, without interfering with your's.

A small example of the differences can be had by comparing the Genesis account to the Gilgamesh account, as in God of the Bible is in control, versus the gods of Gilgamesh, who hide themselves from the violence of the flood. Something overall, perhaps a separate subheading, but after the remaining part of the details are put in. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hmmm, Aschlafly has already altered the layout so that it now goes against what I was trying to do, although perhaps it doesn't matter too much; I'll have to think a bit more about it.
:The point you make about who's in control in each case is already mentioned, but I do think it could be useful to go into this more to illustrate the corruption that's occurred. What we need to avoid, I believe, is something that's "preachy", as this is an encyclopedia, not a Sunday School lesson.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the question as to why God did it in the first place can be added, without being preachy; apart from that, relevant facts can be added in as needed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== 3000 BC? ==

There's been an ongoing argument, with one side repeatedly positing a lack of archaeological evidence before 3000 BC; unfortunately, that simply isn't true.

The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC, and we have a great deal of evidence of the beginnings of urbanisation of Mesopotamia around that time. The potter's wheel first starts to show up in that period, along with increasing use of bronze alongside copper.

Heck, the earliest parts of Stonehenge were already in place by 3000 BC.

That's not even getting into the uninterrupted tree-ring records stretching back about ten thousand years, none of which show any kind of indication of a global flood. --[[User:M|M]] 10:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:23, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Remember the strength of faith.[[User:Saved|Saved]] 10:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These dates you cite are often secularist, and often compromised for many (and amply enumerated elsewhere) reasons. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 10:28, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::How can a date '''often''' be secularist? You mean on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays Stonehenge was built on a secular day whereas the rest of the time it was built on religious days? That really doesn't make sense. Also, if the dates are so easily compromised please either link me to said reasons, as I am obviously just ignorant of how time before 3000BC can just have dissapeared. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 10:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::MatteeNeutra, these dates, and supposed identification of plants '11,000' years old, and whatever, are based on improper Carbon14 Dating, which is even called into question by secularist authorities. [[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;308/5728/1551]] There's a very thorough walk-through, here, at Answers In Creation that explains why relying on these date ''estimates'' can be so problematic. [[http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm]] It isn't that this time, as you say, could have ''disappeared,'' it is that this time never was, because it only existed in the false measurements of secularist scientists. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 11:59, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Answers in Creation is an '''OEC''' site. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I can't get to your first link as you appear to need a subscription. Also, I have just spent about 3 or 4 minutes reading the answers in creation website and it seems to suggest that actually radiocarbon dating is pretty good:
::::"Radiocarbon dates are certainly not precise to within a year or two, but they are generally precise to within a few hundred years or better."<ref>http://www.answersincreation.org/carbondating.htm</ref>.
:::Can you possibly find another "secular authority" source for the apparent lack of faith in Carbon dating, for the benefit of people such as me who are not subscribed to that particular scientific site? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 13:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

For anyone not knowing dendrochronology: it is an unrelated discipline to chemical dating, though it can sometimes be used in conjunction with that or archaeological records. The principle is that trees will add one well-defined 'ring' of growth for every growing season; the size of this ring varies with environmental conditions, and tends to vary in the same manner for all trees of the same type in a given area (since they all were exposed to the same weather conditions). Using this knowledge, the rings of a dead tree can be compared and matched with those of a tree still living to date the various events recorded by the dead tree's rings. The rings of the dead tree can then be compared and matched where they overlap with another, older dead tree, and so on; there are uninterrupted chains of such records stretching back to around 9,000 BC. None of these records show the effects that a global, extended flood would cause. --[[User:M|M]] 19:41, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:This is an excellent contribution to the debate here. Is there any way [[dendrochronology]] can be part of the current article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, I forgot to answer the matter of tree-ring dating. As another editor has raised it again (below), see my response there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll respond to a couple of posts, but first, I wasn't happy with the sentence that was there, which claimed that there was no evidence dated prior to 3000 B.C. There ''are'' claims of dates older than that (although young-Earth creationists do reject the older dates).

'''M''' wrote: ''The first few Egyptian pharaohs reigned before 3100 BC''. This is according to Egyptian chronologies which a number of archaeologists have questioned, suggesting that the Egyptian chronologies should be shortened. As for the other things you mentioned (potter's wheel, etc.), these things are likely dated by methods that are not totally reliable also (for example, many dates for the middle east are tied to the questionable Egyptian chronology).

'''Tsumetai''' wrote: ''Not to mention living plants over 11,000 years old.'' The oldest single living thing is the Bristlecone Pine, which, according to Wikipedia, is nearly 5,000 years old (i.e. dating to about 3000 B.C.!).

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:05, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Shows what you get for trusting Wikipedia :P

:There's a Creosote bush that goes by the name of 'King Clone' which has those beat by a good stretch. Perhaps there's some quirk in the definition of 'single living thing?' [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:20, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I used Wikipedia to find the actual age, but I already knew that the Bristlecone Pines were the oldest living things. Wikipedia has this to say about the Creosote bush and similar things:
:::The oldest single living organisms known are bristlecone pines, though some plants such as creosote bush or aspen, form clonal colonies that may be many times older. The existing growth in clonal colonies sprang as shoots from older growth so there is an unbroken chain of life that sometimes dates back several tens of thousands of years.
::You will note from this that the age of the organisms are not actually known; just that they are likely to be much older because of their nature. And although them being "several tens of thousands of years" old is stated as a fact, it is clear that this is not something measured or directly known. Therefore, they are not evidence against the date of the flood.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it's a measurement [http://www.nps.gov/jotr/naturescience/creosote.htm based on C14 dating and extrapolation of growth rates]. Presumably the two measures are used as a cross-check; I'll see if I can find out more later.

:::Are you familiar with King's Holly, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:18, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That's not exactly what the link says. First, an extrapolation of [current] growth rates is ''not'' a "measurement". Second, the link actually says that the age is an ''estimate'' based partly on C14 dating. So what did the C14 test actually measure if they were only able to use it as input to an estimate? I indicated earlier that there ''are'' items claimed to be older than 5,000 years, but that the dates of older items can be rather tenuous. I think this is an example. Bristlecone pines are ''measured'' by counting their tree rings (although even this may not be accurate), but the creosote bush is an ''estimate'' based partly on an ''extrapolation'' and partly on some unknown C14 test.
::::I've never seen King's Holly, but I know that it's a plant in Tassie, and like the creosote bush, it's age was not directly measured, but based (in this case) on a nearby fossil.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:35, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Tree ring records still haven't been discussed. This is solid scientific evidence that there has not been a world flood. [http://waynesword.palomar.edu/treedate.htm Here is a link](scroll down), but it is only meant to introduce the idea. In reality, it is not just one section of the tree that will match, but several in succession, and there is virtually no chance of them matching by coincidince. I couldn't imagine a way to refute it. It goes back 8,000 years and relies on no carbon dating (though other tests WITH carbon dating have expanded the study. different story.) So, yeah. Probably not a global flood. Not without a coverup.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 02:55, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:First, I don't believe that this article is the place to discuss tree-ring dating. This is an article about the Flood, not about dating, and tree-ring dating is merely one dating method that is used by bibliosceptics to argue against the flood. While there may be some value in including a mention that uniformitarian dating methods conflict with the Biblical record, going much beyond that in trying to refute the Flood is going against the purpose of this article.
:Second, your inability to imagine a way to refute tree-ring dating results may say more about your imagination than anything else. [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 Here] is just such a refutation.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:13, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to sound so closed-minded, but the whole carbon-dating conversation makes me upset. Just "saying" that something isn't reliable in science is just as bad as "saying" that the Bible can't be trusted. And that's all it is is talk by people who know so little about science, or by ONE OR TWO scientists(Chritian scientists) vs. millions, discrediting cinvincing evidence. And, unfortunately, it's the same vice-versa most of the time.

I know that this specific talk page probably isn't the best place, but it's already been brought up. If you want to believe in a global flood, go for it. Just stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports it. It doesn't and never will. Plus, with a divine, interveneing God, why do you even NEED scientific evidence? Just believe in it or dont, and stop speaking from misinformation.[[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 20:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Creationists don't just "say" that dating methods are not reliable; they back it up with evidence, often from non-creationists (which refutes the negatively-exaggerated "one or two"). I'm not "pretending" that the scientific evidence supports it, and I'd thank you to not impugn my motives like that. I ''believe'' that the scientific evidence is consistent with a global flood. You clearly don't, and that's your right, but please don't insult others who see things differently to you.
::Creationists "need" scientific evidence because our faith is not, despite atheistic propaganda, a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And you have accused us of misinformation without providing any evidence of that.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: Isn't it fairly settled that Egypt goes waaaay before 3000 BCE? Also, you argue that "genealogies" can be compressed or expanded and are susceptible to error, making it ''certain'' that Egyptologists (who know a lot more than you, Phil!) are wrong. I'm sure that we can cross-apply this argument to analysis of Biblical genealogies. Biblical ''"scientists"'' say that the genealogies must go back only 6,000 years ago. But using your argument, I'm sure that that's susceptible to stretching, when it reaches an absurd result :-P
: Also, Ur goes back way before 3,000 BCE too. Are you a historian, Phil? What '''''are''''' you? I thoroughly read ancient primary sources and secondary interpretations, and there is not a single archaeologist, or historian, who is actually credible, who will say that Egyptian culture (or Etruscan culture, or proto-Greek culture) goes back only to 3,000 BCE. Even linguists agree that proto-Indo European has a greater vintage than that! Be serious here, for the love of God. When you realize the facts don't line up with your beliefs, then just take your beliefs ''on faith'', which is all they require, and stop insisting that science and history conform to your outmoded view of the way the world actually works. It is simply disgusting and an embarrassment to all that human understanding has struggled to achieve.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not an expert on Egyptian history (as you note), but no, the Egyptian history is ''not'' settled. There are a number of archaeologists who question if not reject the conventional Egyptian chronology.
::And note that I was talking about a compression of chronology, not genealogies. The Egyptian chronology is nothing like as clear-cut as the biblical chronogenealogies, so being able to compress one does not mean that the other is capable of being compressed.
::Please define "credible" in your reference to archaeologists and historians, because if I produce an archaeologist who does accept a shorter chronology, I don't want him automatically rejected as not credible because he believes that.
::As I've just said to Muchodelcrazy, Christian faith is not a blind faith, but a faith based on evidence. And your final sentences amount to saying that "your beliefs don't fit with my beliefs, which I label "facts", so your belief must be wrong".
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith? Is it because it has a negative connotation? Why not just kick it old school and "believe?"

Here's some sources for research: [http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14dats.htm][http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html]

I think that some people have a serious misconception about how radiometric dating. Scientists don't just do a test, go "this is what I found," and make an answer. If you read the articles, you'll notice that there's over 20 different radiometric tests with different elements. In a single sample, many of these tests (with much larger half-lives than C-14) are used. One test says a number. Another says a similar number. And so on and so on. Then this is done over and over again with similar items, such as two different dinosaur bones found right next to each other. The results come out very similar. Let's say that they find one test that says the dinosaur bones were 5000 years old. Does that refute the other 40 tests? ONE disagreement that, for all we know, could have been done by the guy who's new to the job?

In order to say that this method is wrong, you have to outweigh it, or at least to scientifically say it's wrong. It would be necessary to show that 40 coinciding data points were a.)a similar, phenominally rare, mistake or b.)random coincidince, which is even more phenominally rare (but, admittedly, possible. That's why they keep testing).

At the end of the day(actually, decades), it proves reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. This is my last post on the topic. Im gonna go read the Bible. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 03:13, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:What do you mean, "''Why shouldn't Christianity be blind faith?''"? If you are a male, that's a bit like asking why you shouldn't be a female. It seems to be a pointless question, at least in this context. The point is not why it shouldn't be, but what it is. It is a faith based on evidence, not a blind faith.
:You've offered no evidence that there really are "40 coinciding data points". Creationists can point to ''many'' anomalous dates from radiometric dating. That doesn't prove that the methods are worthless, but it does cast doubt over their reliability. And at the end of the day, it proves less than reliable. If you don't want to believe that, then just don't. Enjoy reading the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:50, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Just a random thought, but... all those awkwardly old trees and plants that seem to date back to before the flood? It occurs to me that after the flood, the land would be quite empty, and a real mess, and the growth of the ecosystem would have been much slower than the growth of the human population. So perhaps God somehow spend things up, a lot - I dont know how, but God would find a way - to just get the ecosystem in place so once humans started to repopulate they would have suitable places to live, hunt and farm. This would account for what appear to be very old plants - they are six thousand years old, but for the first hundred ran in fast-motion. - BornAgainBrit

:::Observed rates of growth even in pristine environments are quite sufficient to allow for the growth since the flood without invoking miracles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:21, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
== Pando ==
''(Continuation of previous section)''
::::Actually, (and this is a ''major'' surprise to me as well), the oldest living organism appears to be at least 80,000 years old. That's eighty ''thousand.'' Here's the relevant quote from http://www.nps.gov/brca/naturescience/quakingaspen.htm :

<blockquote>
Asexual or vegetative reproduction from root systems offers many benefits including phenomenal longevity. Aspen "clones," as the individual root systems are called, can live to be thousands of years old. The oldest known clone in existence is called "Pando" and is located in the Fish Lake National Forest in central Utah. It has been aged at 80,000 years! Although 5-10,000 year-old clones are much more common, even these youngsters are much older than Sequoias and even Bristlecone Pines. Current research on fungal mats in Oregon and Creosote Bushes in the Desert Southwest may dethrone aspen from the title of "Longest Living Thing."
</blockquote>
:There is no information on how this age was derived, or even whether it was measured or estimated. And are they talking about the age of the individual plant or its clonal ancestor? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Looks like clonal ancestor to me - they're treating the entire colony as a single organism, since they share the same root system. ::Basically, each new 'tree' is an offshoot of the one before, and it remains linked to it - like one colossal set of conjoined siblings. Incidentally, this comment's getting rather long...perhaps we should split discussion of ''Pando'' off into a new one?--[[User:M|M]] 09:28, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if it's the clonal ancestor, are talking here about an extrapolation (i.e. not a measurement) back to something that no longer exists? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:10, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I may be mistaken, but I don't believe so; if I read it correctly, the actual root system itself ''is'' eighty thousand years old. All of the offshoots share the same root system, which is why it's referred to as a single (though clonal) organism.--[[User:M|M]] 18:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Just Curious - how many were killed? ==

How many people were killed during the great flood? Did they all deserve it? Given the fixation that the Christian right has about sex, we must assume that many of those who received this death setence from the Almighty had indulged in some pre, extra, or even marital sex that resulted in preganncy. Is there an estimate then of how many pregnant women were killed by God through the flood?

Talk:Malcolm X

2007-04-23T18:00:02Z

Trajsmith: the family vacationed often - to a point that the house of the family has been destroyed by a fire

== the family vacationed often - to a point that the house of the family has been destroyed by a fire ==

I am intrigued; frequent vacations make your house burn down? Given the astonishing number of vacaction days taken by Reagan, and the even higher number taken by Bush, why is the White House still standing?

Talk:Cotton

2007-04-23T17:51:32Z

Trajsmith:

''The Bible forbids the wearing cotton mixed with polyester.''

What on earth are you talking about? Leviticus 19:19 reads "...neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woolen come upon thee." Linen - not cotton, or polyester, and wool, not cotton, or polyester.

It depends what translation you are reading, doesn't it? The American Standard Version has ''neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.'' and the New International Version has ''Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.''

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19&version=8
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus%2019:19;&version=31;
[[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Clearly, different translations will have differnt types of cloth mentioned, however, I think we can all be sure that polyester is not one of them!!!

==and God willing, will be for a very long time==

This doesn't sound very encyclopaedic to me. [[User:Aloysius|Aloysius]] 06:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Artist

2007-04-19T17:56:39Z

Trajsmith: Don't believe you need to be a professional artist to be an artist.

A term used to describe a person who creates art.

Gross Margin

2007-04-02T18:34:05Z

Trajsmith: Explaining Gross Margin and its difference from Markup

Gross Margin is the profit resulting from deducting the cost of a good from its selling price. It should not be confused with mark-up. If a good with a cost of $75.00 is sold for $100.00, the gross margin is $25.00 or 25%. The mark-up is $25.00 or 33.3% (25/75).

Professional accountants and economists have many different ways of defining cost, however, that is not the thrust of this brief article.

Hedge fund

2007-04-02T18:08:50Z

Trajsmith: Definition touched only very small part of what hedge funds are

<s>A hedge fund seeks to earn returns based on frequent stock trades that use valuation models to find and exploit undervalued stocks (which can be bought) and overvalued stocks (which can be sold).

Often American or British hedge funds cause unexpected changes in value in small stock exchanges of foreign countries, leading to complaints by local investors. In one case, the [[Long-Term Capital Management]] firm received favoritism by American government officials to rescue it from financial disaster based on a failure of its hedge fund models.</s>

A hedge fund is an investment fund limited to 100 investors. As only 'accredited investors' are allowed, the reporting by such funds is exempt from may SEC reporting requirements. While similar in many ways to mutual funds, the aformentioned lack of SEC regulation allows them to pursue much more aggressive strategies.