Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Trinity

2008-09-01T03:03:34Z

Xion: /* figure of speech */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
== I changed the title of the article due to long term interest. Search engines searches will be for "trinity" and not "Holy Trinity" ==

I changed the title of the article due to long term interest. Search engines searches will be for "trinity" and not "Holy Trinity" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:27, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== also, i deleted a pic because there appeared to be no associated pic ==

also, i deleted a pic because there appeared to be no associated pic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

== source for koran view on trinity ==
The source should be given: it is koran 5:73
"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God." [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 11:27, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

Also, the koran just resists the idea that ''Christians'' take a trinity including the Holy Mother. koran 5:116 : "And behold! God will say: 'O Jesus, the son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of God,?'". Muslims may have targeted Christians who did not accept the Nicene Creed, which is our true Faith. Eg. Apocryphon of John 5:5 : "I am the Father, I am the Mother, I am the Son." [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]]

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove the catgories theology and christianity, as they are both supercategories of [[:Category:Trinity]]. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 19:12, 10 January 2008 (EST)

== figure of speech ==

Trinity is figure speech there is only one god even wen he was jesus andd the father he was still one.

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2008-09-01T02:52:06Z

Xion: /* other belifes */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

Talk:Extraterrestrial life

2008-09-01T02:49:05Z

Xion: /* ??? */ new section

== The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==

I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:It absolutely does. "Let us make man in Our own image and likeness." Not, "Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though. It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation. But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon ''him'' to find a [[Bible]] reference that says that Christians or saved persons ''do'' exist on other planets. Can either of you cite ''one single verse'' in the [[Bible]] that says, or implies, that [[Jesus]] died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find ''one single verse'' that says, or implies, that any of the [[Apostle]]s took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?
:::And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than [[earth]], and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that "other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the "other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't." I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say "we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Parts left out of the Bible" cannot exist. See {{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=22|verses=18-19|version=NASB}}. And mere ''speculation'' about "parts left out of the Bible" do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you ''think'' that those "parts left out of the Bible" talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say "ET doesn't exist" then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Another [[loaded question]]. I addressed only the "parts left out of the Bible" question. There's more on what [[God]] has to say:
:::::# God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.
:::::# This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of [[David]].
:::::# The [[Old Testament]] contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.
:::::# This same King had to die in order to expiate the [[Sin (fundamentalism)|sin]] condition of an entity called "the world." The word used in that context is ''cosmos'', which means all of nature.
:::::# Furthermore, He had to die once--and ''only'' once.
:::::# One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.
:::::# THrough ''one'' man--[[Adam]]--came sin into the world. Through ''one'' other Man--[[Jesus]]--is sin taken away from the world.

:::::Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible? Like the Mormons. The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Answered above. [[Jesus]] was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens? That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too. Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

''One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.'' - So only people who lived in Nazareth ''circa'' 30 AD can be Christians? Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hydroplate theory==

I'd like to know more about this.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
: Working on it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== An extraterrestrial nation-state ==
The idea of an alien "nation-state" makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do. What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself? --[[User:Lambchop|Lambchop]] 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President [[Jimmy Carter|Carter]]'s speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what [[Francis Crick]] played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in ''The War of the Worlds'' or the ''V'' series of [[television]] projects.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article? That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap. Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term ''nation-state'' has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world ''were'' identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term "Western civilization" refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient [[Greece]], then to ancient [[Rome]], then to the various kingdoms of [[Europe]] and, of course, the [[United States of America]].
:::In sum, "civilization" includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.
:::And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of ''one'' nation-state that ''happens'' to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to "Western civilization." Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Opening Sentence==
I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the "if they exist" segment. Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:I disagree. By removing the dependent clause "if they exist," you mean me to imply that ET life ''does'' exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone ''does'' so show, it's still an "if" and will remain an "if."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying "no definite proof of their existance" or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a "fanciful concept." Or maybe an adjective like "impossible." I am being very generous by using a simple "if" statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I have to disagree. The sentence currently reads "if such a thing existed", implying that it doesn't. Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. [[User:Brewer13210|Brewer13210]] 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Cite doesn't match passage ==

From the article ''"The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven""'' is cited with two passages:

::''26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

::''27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.''

::'' 28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

and

::'' 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

'''NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.

[[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 '''"And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd."''' Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the ''fact'' is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:The fold called "this fold" in the verse you quote above consists of the [[Judaism|Jewish]] race only. "Other sheep not of this fold" are Gentiles (literally, "nationals," from the [[Latin]] ''gens'' a national clan).

:If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had ''not'' fallen, then [[God]] would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a "fallen world" is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.

:And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And [[liberals]] know it. Say what you will about whether [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] chose the right title for his [[Exotheology|article]]. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a [[religion]] in irreconcilable conflict with [[Christian]]ity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.

:Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by "life" I mean ''intelligent'' and ''rational'' and ''self-aware'' life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a "close encounter of the second kind." But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of [[evolution]], believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes "are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts." I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.

:But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. '''Nowhere''' in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with '''billions''' of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of "intelligent, rational, and self-aware" life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so "special" and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says "life" elsewhere cannot exist! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And ''you'', ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial ''visitation'' of [[earth]] as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and ''do not matter'' to the question at hand, which is: whether ''the [[Bible]]'' allows for the possibility.
:::Jesus died '''once'''. And '''once only'''. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. '''You''' have to show '''me''' where the Bible admits that other races '''do''' exist, or even '''might''' exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryH, yes lovely purple prose. But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am being very generous in the edit that I have just published, which is: I cite your criticism (of course, not mentioning any names or even usernames), but also point out that the words and phrases (use of ''the'' rather than ''this'' or ''a(n)'' or ''one'', and references to [[Adam]] in a way that does ''not'' admit that Adam had a counterpart on another planet) still support the claim of uniqueness. I've also moved that to a footnote that appears directly below the verses I cited.

::And I have gone about as far with you as I intend, and you know exactly what I mean by that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm at a loss to understand your logic here. '''Why''' would an alien nation absolutely have to have a counterpart of Adam or Jesus? I also dispute your logic that the Bible even does rule out the possibility of equivalent figure on other worlds. There is literally nothing there to rule out that possibility. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== wow... ==

This has to be strangest article I have ''ever'' read on this topic. Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good. But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, ''interestingly'') discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article. You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. [[User:Human|Human]] 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise ==

Thanks to my discovery of [[Essay]]s, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.

I urge you to read my [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible|essay]] on the subject of compatibility of the [[Bible]] with ET life. That said, I urge ''everyone'' to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.

I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==I intend to delete the Definitions section...==
...unless someone can provide a great reason not to. Terms such as "life" should be handled by linking to the Life article, "UFO" is just an acronym and should be expanded (once) in the text, and so on. {{unsigned|Ga ohoyt}}
:It does seem a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article, and in that sense I wouldn't mind it going. However, it doesn't take a lot of space, and I guess the point is that some of the terms (particularly, for example, "race") are or might be used in a particular way in this article that a simple link to another article will not adequately cater for.
:I guess what it comes down to is, don't casually delete the section, but check for each definition whether it is necessary or not. On "UFO", for example, you are correct, it doesn't need to be in a definitions section.
: This article was largely written by TerryH, so try and ensure that he gives feedback on your suggestion before acting (though that is not to suggest that he has the final say on it).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:38, 2 January 2008 (EST)

:I included the definitions section for a highly specific reason: I wanted to make ''sure'' that everyone understood what I meant by the terms "extraterrestrial" and "life." The very concept of extraterrestrial life is highly controversial, and has been from the beginning. As such, it's flame bait. And one of the favorite tactics of the flame warrior is to change the definitions in the middle of an argument. The "Definitions" section exists to prevent this.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:54, 2 January 2008 (EST)
:: That's two of the eight definitions. Could they be incorporated into the body of the text (rather than a "definitions" section) and the other six simply have in-text links to appropriate articles? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:42, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:::Of the other six, only [[UFO]] has any expansion at all. I already noticed that "life" redirects to [[John Conway]]—an electronic game designer.
:::Now perhaps the word ''extraterrestrial'' already gets its definition from the lead sentence. But the other seven will need other articles explaining their meaning, and in such a way that the context will be unmistakable in this article. I suppose that's your challenge.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:30, 3 January 2008 (EST)
OK, I think this is better. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:27, 4 January 2008 (EST)

==Salvation rules out extra-terrestrial life?==
This article seems to imply that because God sent Jesus only once, and only to planet Earth, and only in the form of a human being, then there can not logically be alien life elsewhere in the universe. I find this puzzling. Jesus was also an Israelite, but does that mean only Israelites can be Saved? If aliens exist, then millions or even billions of intelligent beings are now dying on their planets without ever hearing about Jesus! How is this different than the millions of people from all over the world who died before ever hearing about the Gospel? If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?
 Perhaps the implication of scripture is that it is our divine imperative to contact extraterrestrial civilizations so that they may be saved by Christ! --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: You forget that [[Jesus Christ]] came to save not merely the [[Israel]]ites, but the entire race of [[human]] beings of whom the Israelites make up one extended family, as it were.

: Concerning the deaths of unsaved humans on earth, don't forget that we all descend from one man—[[Noah]]—to whom goes the credit for the [[Noah's Ark|greatest achievement of all time]] in the annals of shipbuilding. The trouble was that the descendants of Noah, in spreading far and wide, forgot about [[God]]. It would take an itinerant shepherd named [[Abraham]] to remind everyone about Him again.

: Furthermore, you don't seem to understand the very special place that the [[earth]] occupies in the [[universe]]. In point of fact, ''our [[galaxy]] lies at the center of the universe.'' One can establish this quite easily by observing three key facts: (1) [[redshift]], (2) proportional redshift (that is, the further away an object, the more pronounced the redshift), and (3) quantized redshift (that is, redshift appears to distribute itself discontinuously and in concentric spheres, all centered on our own galaxy).

: We therefore have no reason to doubt that ours is the only world having life on it. I don't know what other signs you might have seen, or think that others have seen. But I can tell you right now: reports of [[UFO]]s are without exception exaggerated to one degree or another. The truth behind those reports runs the gamut from complete fabrication to another example of the false signs and wonders against which Jesus specifically warned mankind.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:08, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::TerryH, while you are right it may '''appear''' that our galaxy is the center of the universe simply from superficial observation, it also '''appears''' from observation that the [[Geocentrism|Sun orbits around the Earth]]. You forget [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble's Law]] which states that motion is relative in a uniformly expanding universe. This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. Refer to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1929PNAS...15..168H&db_key=AST&data_type=HTML&format=&high=42ca922c9c30954

:::These things aside, the very fact that so many people in Biblical and modern times died without knowing Christ shows exactly what I mean. If God created people on other continents even though He knew they would have no possible way of hearing about Jesus until they were reached by Christians, then it is not ridiculous to imagine that He might have also created people on other planets even though He knew they would have no possible way of being saved until we humans are one day able to contact them and teach them the Gospel.

:::Lastly, I do not believe in UFOs and no rational person would. Considering the human brain's propensity to make mistakes when it tries to fill in gaps (especially at night or during stressful situations), no reasonable person believes that UFO sightings, seeing Bigfoot, talking to aliens, hearing the voice of God, seeing the Loch Ness monster, etc., etc. are anything other than a product of over-active imaginations, of course. Rather, I along with many others propose that the [[Star#Number_of_Stars|sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000)]], as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

First, I haven't forgotten Hubble's Law. Nor have I forgotten something that you have, or maybe you just never heard about it: [[Edwin Hubble]] deliberately rejected the obvious explanation for what he was seeing, namely that we are at the center of the universe, on no better ground than the philosophical. His "hyperballoon" explanation for redshift all around fails to account for the quantized redshift effect and, in general, is a clear violation of [[Occam's Razor]]. In short, I maintain that Hubble's Law, as you have stated it, is a dead letter.

In this connection I remind you that the Sun ''does not'' appear to revolve around the earth, not when you consider the phases of [[Venus]], the phenomenon that convinced [[Galileo Galilei]] to surmise, correctly, that the [[earth]] is in orbit around the [[sun]]. Edwin Hubble has no "phases of Venus" to convince me or anyone that "relative motion looks the same everywhere you look." So that last is just a surmise. And if you looked at Edwin Hubble's own words, as [[John Hartnett]] did, you'd know that Hubble was explicit that his objection was a philosophical one.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter: as a [[young earth creationism|young earth creationist]], I have no problem with realizing that our [[galaxy]] is at the center of the [[universe]]. Edwin Hubble, [[evolutionism|evolutionist]] that he was, clearly did. And his "solution" was a cheap dodge more worthy of a beginning laboratory intern who can't handle a few outlying observations. Why, if Madame [[Marie Curie]] had pulled that kind of dodge when she kept observing more energy in pitchblende than she could account for after removing the [[uranium]], [[thorium]], and other known radioactive elements, she would never have discovered [[radium]].

Now about those various peoples: [[God]] created [[Adam]] and Eve, placed them in the Garden of [[Eden]], and gave them certain instructions. Foolishly, they violated those instructions. Then God left things up to the cosnciences of men, all of whom descended from that one couple. What happened was that [[antediluvian civilization]] became so cruel that it could not be allowed to continue. So God sent a [[Great Flood]] and told [[Noah]] to build the [[Noah's Ark|greatest ship ever built]] to survive it.

After it was over, those eight people (Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives) all knew about God. So if [[Ham]] did something monumentally disgusting (the nature of which I shall not repeat here), that indicated that the basic [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] nature of man hadn't changed. Yet for a few generations, God dealt with man under the dispensation of human government. That ended in failure, too. So God singled one man out—[[Abraham]]—and brought him to a specific "promised" [[Israel|land]]. Still, every other man alive was descended from one who ought to have remembered God, but didn't.

Now [[Jesus Christ]] has left us with very strict instructions about telling our far-distant cousins about Him. But here is a point on which you have never touched: He never said ''one single word'' about going and making disciples of nations in orbit around [[star]]s other than our own [[sun]]. He would never have left that out. Neither do extraterrestrial civilizations figure in end-times prophecy, and for a very good reason: they do not exist.

Last of all: So what if there are a number of stars that you can represent with seven followed by an uncountable number of zeroes? That still doesn't make any one of them a candidate for a creation story to parallel ours. And water on Mars? For your information, water was the original material of which ''all'' celestial bodies were made. {{Bible ref|book=2_Peter|chap=3|verses=5}} Some of that water might have splashed down on Mars after having been ejected into space in the Great Flood event. More to the point, if water was all it took on Mars, then why don't we have any monuments to a [[War of the Worlds]] fought either in 1899 or 1959 or 2005? Why, next you'll be telling me about a refugee from an exploding planet, a refugee that became a [[God-substitute]] after he rose to manhood from small-town beginnings in the [[United States|American]] heartland. I don't doubt that a number of reporters at [[The New York Times]] must think that they ''are'' Clark Kent, but that doesn't make the name fit any of them.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:33, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred, creationism can not be preferred over evolution because it states that the most complicated being ever (God) is responsible for everything we see instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection.

:::::Next, my statement that water has been found on Mars was not to suggest that I believe that the War of the Worlds actually occurred in any of its fictional incarnations, of which you seem to be quite knowledgeable (Don't forget the radio play in 1939!). I resent that you seem to think I believe in the literal truth of science fiction just because I think their may be life in outer space. Such a conclusion does not follow. If I were to make a similar accusation, I could suggest that you believe that the antichrist will be an individual named Nicolae Carpathia, former President of Romania, just because that is what it says in [[Left Behind]]. Though you may really believe that the antichrist will be a real fixture of human future, of course you don't think that he or she will have the exact same name or background as proposed in Tim LaHaye's work. Talking to me as though I believe Superman, War of the Worlds, and other works of fiction are real is a disrespectful rhetorical technique and I resent it.

:::::For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html Although, there can not feasibly '''be''' an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking. Despite this, I do not understand, even if Hubble was wrong in his proclamation, what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the "center" of anything. What if our "central" galaxy has '''several''' inhabited planets, in addition to Earth? After all, there are a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. And even if our galaxy was in the "center", our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.

:::::However, I now realize you are correct on theological terms. Now that I think about it, only descendants of Adam will inherit man's sinfulness. You've made me realize, therefore, that any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from [[Original Sin]]. This actually explains why we have not yet been effectively able to make contact; They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. This appears to be the Vatican's opinion too: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm , as well as that of [[C.S. Lewis]] as he proposed in his book [[Out of the Silent Planet]]. With everyone's sentiment I will update the article to include the opinions of those Christians. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:35, 22 August 2008 (EDT)

"''If God created the Native Americans knowing it would be 1500 years before they could hear about Jesus, how is it different than if He created aliens in outer space knowing it would be thousands and thousands of years before they were contacted by Christians?''": One difference is that the native Americans are blood relatives of Jesus, which the aliens would not be. Jesus can take our punishment because He is our "kinsman redeemer". He can redeem us because he is our kinsman, or relative, because we are all descended from Adam and Eve. Aliens would not be descended from Adam and Eve.

"''This means that no matter where you are in the universe you will always appear to be in its center. ... For your benefit here is a concise visual demonstration of how any point in the universe can appear to be in the center: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html.''": From the point of view of the expansion of the universe, this is correct: We ''appear'' to be at the centre, as does every other point. However, from the point of view of the [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ quantised redshifts], we ''are'' close to the centre of the universe, and, unlike the expansion, this would not appear the same everywhere else in the universe. (The link does not even address this.) To correct TerryH slightly, I think the accurate way of putting it is that our galaxy is at ''or close to'' the centre.

"''I along with many others propose that the sheer amount of stars in the universe (70000000000000000000000000), as well as the recent confirmation of water on Mars (http://uanews.org/node/20779) is enough to more than imply existence of extraterrestrial life.''": First, the sheer number of stars being a reason to think that there is extraterrestrial life is only valid if one is ''assuming'' that life comes about by chance. If one accepts that it was ''designed'', then the number of stars has no bearing on the matter. Second, water on Mars no more improves the chances of extraterrestrial life than finding silicon on Mars improves the chances of finding computers there. Life requires ''[[information]]'', which is not found there.

"''If Occam's Razor states that the simplest scientific explanation is the most preferred...''": It doesn't. It states (and this is not accurate either) that the ''simplest explanation'' is the most preferred; it doesn't say anything about a ''scientific'' explanation.

"''...the most complicated being ever (God)...''": God is not complicated; He is not composed of parts.

"''...instead of a simple, natural, predictable process known as natural selection...''": Natural selection cannot, by itself, produce anything. Natural selection is a ''culling'' process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit. And there's nothing simple and predictable about evolution.

"''I do not know how Occam's Razor applies to any of this since creationism is itself a violation of that very law. ... creationism can not be preferred over evolution...''": Evolution involves numerous ''ad hoc'' explanations to accommodate the facts; the alternative that God created life is by far the simpler explanation.

"''Although, there can not feasibly be an actual center of the universe because of its infinite nature, cosmologically speaking.''": As TerryH explained, Hubble chose his model for philosophical reasons in order to reject the idea that we were at or near the centre of the universe. An infinite, or unbounded, universe is an idea designed to accommodate this; it is not an observed fact.

"''I do not understand ... what the significance would be of our galaxy being in the "center" of anything.''": Hubble realised the significance: it would imply something special about us (and that didn't fit with his views).

"''...even if our galaxy was in the "center", our Earth is not in the center of our galaxy. In fact, a super massive black hole is. If you are trying to suggest that centrally located things are more important than other things, then, logically, a massive black hole is more important than all of the Earth since it is in the center of our galaxy.''": The importance of something being at the centre is based on what it is at the centre of. Being at the centre of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the galaxy. As I said above, TerryH was slightly incorrect to claim that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe. Whilst the galaxy is ''close to'' the centre, it's ''possible'' (I'm not making any actual claims here), that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. That would make it more important than the black hole at the centre of just our galaxy. Regardless, it is clear from the Bible that we are at the centre of God's attention, and being at the centre of attention of the Creator of the universe is more significant than being at the centre of the universe He created.

"''...any extraterrestrials we may meet will be, by the very virtue of having not been born on Earth, free from Original Sin.'''": Whilst this is correct, the Bible also tells us that our sin has affected ''the whole of creation'', so our sin has affected those sinless aliens! Does that sound right? No, our sin has affected the whole of creation because God created the whole universe ''for us'', not for us and aliens.

"''They have not progressed technologically beyond their extraterrestrial Gardens of Eden because they have not yet consumed the fruit from the Trees of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.''": That was the fruit of the Tree (singular) of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, not the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Technology. Your comment appears to me to be a non-sequitur.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Thank you for your thought-out responses, Philip. First I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated (a point made frequently by intelligent design proponents) any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of "parts" shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no "simple" means can mind exist without body. So, God is not a "simple" answer for anything.
::::You also make the erroneous claim that evolution and natural selection is a more complicated explanation for all of life because ''"natural selection is a culling process, removing the less fit. You need some other mechanism to produce the more fit."'' You are absolutely correct. However, there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing "more fit" specimen. Bacteria periodically "adapt" to the vaccines, meaning we have to create new vaccines. Indeed it seems that "some other mechanism" is producing more fit bacteria. There are now many recorded cases of people in the world who seem to be immune to HIV/AIDs http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/27/aids.features . Somehow, all across the realm of nature, more fit individuals are being produced by "some mechanism."
::::Moving onto anthropocentric cosmology, I will assume for one moment that ''"it's possible ... that the Earth is at the centre of the universe."'' How could this reasonably be ''possible'' considering the well established fact that our Earth circumnavigates the sun every year? Is everything else in the universe simply moving around in such a way to ensure that the Earth remains in the center?
::::And, if in fact the Earth is in the center of the universe, therefore making it the most important thing in existence, then whatever is at the center of Earth is the most important thing in creation. By your own logic, the molten core of the Earth (or whatever you think is in the center of the Earth, possibly Hell) is more important than all of humanity.
::::The Bible tells us that, as mere humans, we are to be humble. How then can either of you excuse walking around assuming everything in the universe revolves around us, and that all 3,230,441,870,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of the cosmos was made for the benefit of providing dim night lights for us {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=17}}. People accuse evolutionists of worshiping man, saying that humans are the "pinnacle of evolution" (we're not, really). Yet evolutionists constantly point out that we are not centered in the universe, that there is nothing specially significant about us, etc., while at the same time, creationists, supposedly humble before God, seem to sincerely believe that everything in the universe is centered around humans, and that all of Earth is made for humans to trash. Who is really worshiping man before all else?
::::These points aside, I will now go ahead and make the changes I have described earlier: Some Christians, specifically CS Lewis and the Vatican, have discussed extraterrestrial life from within an [[Exotheology|exotheological]] perspective. Both seem to think aliens would be free from Original Sin because they are not from Earth, which makes sense. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 17:32, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::"''I would like to address the assertion that God is not complicated. God is usually defined as eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, and ultimately 'unknowable' to humanity. Considering that the universe and everything in it is very complicated ... any being capable of knowing about all of it at once should be very complicated. Whether or not He is composed of "parts" shouldn't have any bearing on this. Conceivably, the fact that He is immaterial would make his existence even '''more''' confounding to us, since by no "simple" means can mind exist without body.''": For one thing, you are assuming that God has the same limitations that physical beings have. How do you know that a being ''cannot'' exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? Assuming we are using "complicated" and "complex" as synonyms, see this:
{{QuoteBox|According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn’t only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is ‘a single and simple spiritual being.’)[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5448]}}
:::::"''...there are numerous documented cases of spontaneous mutations producing "more fit" specimen. Bacteria periodically "adapt" to the vaccines...''": I was trying to conform to the terms used, and in doing so oversimplified. Certainly there are mechanisms (copying mistakes a.k.a. mutations) that produce changes that are beneficial. However, these beneficial mutations are not information-gaining mutations, but information-''losing'' mutations. For example, penicillin gets into bacteria by means of the pumps that the bacteria use for bringing in nutrients (I think it is). A mutation makes these pumps ''less efficient'', so the bacteria pumps in less penicillin, not enough to kill it. This makes the bacteria "more fit" for a penicillin-rich environment, but otherwise it is less fit, and has lost information (involved with the pump mechanism). Evolution, however, to be more precise, requires an ''information-gaining'' mechanism. It doesn't have one.
::::: You are correct about the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre. I consider that argument to be like an imperfect but still-valid analogy; it can only be pushed so far. But remember that it was Hubble (and others) who saw the significance and rejected it for philosophical reasons.
::::: As for being humble, I think evolution produces both extremes of views. If we are here by evolution and not God, then on the one hand we are the pinnacle of creation, responsible only to ourselves, and masters of our own destiny. That can produce extreme pride in ourselves. On the other hand, we are nothing more than a cosmic accident, existing for a brief moment in the time and then gone. We are essentially worthless. That can produce extreme depression (and is likely responsible for much of the current problem with youth suicide, depression, low self-esteem, etc.). Conversely, if we are made in the image of God and are the centre of his creation, that means that we are special. But we are not the products of our own ingenuity, but created by someone greater, compared to Whom we are but dust ({{Bible ref|Psalm|103|14}}), so we take pride in our Creator, not in our own abilities. That's a fare more balanced viewpoint.

I will preface this by saying that we have digressed beyond talking about extraterrestrial life. As I have already expanded on the [[Extraterrestrial_life#Christian_Views_on_Extraterrestrial_Life|Christian views on extraterrestrial life]] section, so what follows is simply in the spirit of good-natured discussion:

As far as Hubble and others concerning an Earth-centered model of the universe, I feel that they "rejected" it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe, for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence. Just thinking about it, an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part, and just simply silly (sorry). You yourself pointed out ''the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''

While your point that evolution does not create "new information" is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts. With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create "new information." Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

''How do you know that a being cannot exist that (a) knows everything, and (b) is not complicated? '' Because if it knows everything, it '''is''' complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise. Possessing knowledge of everything can not in any way make you simple.

As far as the idea that teaching evolution encourages suicide, depression, etc.--personally I find it ridiculous. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity or any other religion. In fact, in the US, over 70% of people that believe in evolution also believe in God. Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx However, evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, but then again, so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers {{Bible ref|Leviticus|19|19}}. A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.

Next, even if there is a higher amount of [[atheism]] among evolutionists, it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression. If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it--not waste time being depressed about it (personally speaking, even when I believed in God, I was prone to depression).

To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be "born again." Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless. Atheism makes people "seize the day." I am sometimes frightened by some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply ''anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise''. Sounds suicidal to me. Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the "bad" afterlife. Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory. (Also I'm sorry if I have offended you, this is just my position as a secular conservative).
All this aside, I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 18:40, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

:"''I feel that they [Hubble et. al.] "rejected" it because it simply doesn't make sense assuming an inflationary, Big Bang model of the universe''": I believe that the "inflationary, Big Bang model" came ''after'' they had rejected the idea of the universe having a centre.
:"''...for which even then there was already plenty of supporting evidence''": There's not much evidence even now!
:"''...an Earth-centered view is needlessly egocentric on our part...''": Egocentric? When ego is not the reason for thinking that?
:"''...and just simply silly (sorry).''": Because you say so?
:"''You yourself pointed out the impossibility of a moving Earth being able to be and remain at the centre.''": Actually, I was going to add, but forgot (it was late), that this depends on how you define the centre. If it is a point of no width, height, or depth, then that is correct. But we might say that the town hall is in the "centre of town". How can something be ''in'' the centre if the centre is dimensionless? Rather, by "centre" we might be referring to a ''central area'', not a dimensionless point. That being the case, it is quite possible for the Earth to be in the centre (central area) of the universe.
:"''While your point that evolution does not create "new information" is true in a strict sense since no matter is ever created or destroyed, in this case it does not apply because rearranging existing gene sequences can indeed create something better than the sum of its parts.''": Information is neither energy nor matter, but a distinct fundamental entity. Information ''can'' be created and destroyed. Mutations can destroy information, and intelligence can create it. Our DNA contains genetic information, and evolution has no way of generating it. Simply rearranging existing gene sequences at random (i.e. without an intelligent designer) cannot create new [[information]] (<--did you read that?)
:"''With your logic, such things as a baby growing into a man, a seed germinating into a tree, etc. would be impossible if one assumes biology can not by itself create "new information."''": Wrong. A baby already has all the genetic information for the man, and a seed for a tree. No new information required. But biology doesn't explain the origin of that information.
:"''Refer to: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm''": If true (you will note that a biologist—although they don't tell you that he's a biologist—has disputed that claim (and they attempt to counter-counter-claim)), it merely amounts to an exception to the rule; the rule is still that mutations don't produce information. Hypothetically, there is a vanishingly-small chance that a mutation might in extremely rare cases produce new information, but this occasion would be swamped by all the information-destroying ones. It's like going one step forwards and a thousand steps backwards: the result is that you go backwards.
:"''Because if it knows everything, it is complicated, no matter how many theologians you get to say otherwise.''": Again, just because you say so? Sorry if I take that with a grain of salt.
:"''...evolution is not incompatible with Christianity...''": Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution. For one thing, evolution is naturalistic; the Bible proposes a supernatural explanation. For another, the time span from the start of the univers to the appearance of man is six days according to the Bible, and about 14,000,000,000 years according to evolution. Also, the order of appearance disagrees: evolution has fish before fruit trees, contrary to the Bible, for example. And most importantly, the Bible has death being the result of man's sin (hence death must have come after man) whereas evolution has death a vital factor leading to man. If sin didn't lead to death, then what do we need to be saved from? There is no need for the atonement, and Christianity is pointless. Not incompatible? Hah! It's diametrically opposed.
:"''...evolution is certainly incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Old Testament...''": Ah! So you ''can'' see that it's incompatible! Yet you just (effectively) denied that! By the way, it's not incompatible with a "literal interpretation", but with what the Old Testament actually records. That is, there is no proper way of understanding it any differently.
:"''...so is every aspect of modern life unless one proposes that we reinstate a harsh penalty for wearing mixed fibers.''": You are confusing ''historical record'' with ''rules for the nation of Israel''. Chalk and cheese. Rules can be changed. History doesn't.
:"''A literal interpretation of the Old Testament is perhaps as useful to us a literal interpretation of ancient Egyptian mythology, say, or tribal African cults.''": How about as useful as a "literal interpretation" of ancient Roman history? Or a literal interpretation of evolution? (Ever noticed that when people try and argue that evolution and the Bible are compatible, it's the Word of God and not the words of man that they want to mythologise?)
:"''...it is not clear why atheism itself should produce depression''": Because there's no hope; it's all a matter of chance. Even if you ''think''' that there's hope, why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?
:"''If anything, realizing you have such a short amount of time to actually exist encourages people to make the most of it...''": What do you mean by "make the most"? The most what? With atheism, nothing has any meaning.
:"''To me, what's more depressing is sincerely believing that the most important thing in your life is to be "born again." Then, once you've done that, what are you ultimately doing with your life save for waiting around to die--so you can move on to your glorious eternal salvation? It's suffocating, and ultimately makes Earthly life feel very pointless.''": Perhaps that's why you were prone to depression when you believed in God—because you had an incomplete if not distorted view of things. God has tasks for you to do, including telling others about Him. You are most definitely ''not'' supposed to be just "waiting around to die".
:"''...some of my Christian friends because they have a propensity to say things that imply anticipation or excitement about their own personal demise.''": No, they have an anticipation or excitement about being freed from the restrictions of this life. The "personal demise" is a new ''start'', not an end.
:"''Why haven't they ended it themselves? Because that would give them the "bad" afterlife.''": No, because God has work for them to do here.
:"''Just because there is less suicide among theists doesn't mean they are actually enjoying an existence they believe to be transitory.''": Logically, no, it doesn't follow that there is less suicide ''just because of that''. But it's generally true anyway that they are enjoying this transitory existence (I know I am) and that is probably a major reason why they would have fewer suicides.
:"''I have made the edits to the particular section in question. What is the opinion on this?''": I haven't actually looked at your edits yet! When I get time...
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:48, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

::""...''evolution is not incompatible with Christianity''...": Yes it is. Christianity is based on the Bible, and the Bible's account of creation as well as other passages is incompatible with evolution." Question, possibly a bit of a sidetrack, but I'm curious. People that follow the moral teachings of the Bible, but don't see it as word-for-word literal truth: are they Christians?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::If a person believes that Allah is God and that Mohammad is His prophet, would you consider that person to be a Muslim? What if that person also believed in evolution? After all, Islam has a creation story too. It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.
:::By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible), than only three in ten Americans are truly "Christian." I do not see what following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ has anything to do with believing in ancient mythology. But I've also heard people say "why follow Christ if there was not a literal [[Original Sin|Fall]], etc.," as if we need to believe that [[Genesis]] actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked. Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.
:::And what if the Messiah was real but our conception of him is formed around the beliefs of His time? Maybe conservative Christians believe in Genesis because Jesus was born in a strongly Jewish community? If Jesus had been born in India would his message be tied to the Hindu creation myth? Had he been born in Africa would his message be tied to an African creation myth? I understand that Jesus was "prophesied" to be a paternal descendant of King David (but also not have a father...), I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.
:::Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true what Hubble observed: that is, that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point. Whether or not Earth is at or near this point, the implication of these observations is still that ''all of the universe is quickly expanding outward from a certain point which at some time in the past exploded outward to form the cosmos''--evidence enough of the Big Bang.
:::"Evolution provides a random, naturalistic explanation..." So what? People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things. People ''believe'' that God sent their child to them, yet they also ''understand'' that the conception of their child was (at least to human observers) a completely random sperm and egg that were fertilized in a completely naturalistic process.
:::As for how you are somehow comforted or excited by the concept that "''God has tasks for you to do''" here on Earth; I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you. I have tasks for a ''stapler'' to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler. Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them? Life has the potential to be so much more fulfilling if every individual dictates his or her own agenda. This is why free market capitalism works. The concept that God has a mission he expects me to fulfill is almost no different than the idea that the Communist welfare State has a mission for me to do. Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.
:::God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including [[Alvin Plantinga]], have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his "personal" aspect. However, our discussion on the matter seems to be a back-and-forth shouting match so I don't think we'll get anywhere here, either.
:::Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating "new information" ''by definition''. You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable. The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years. It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.
:::I do not think we're going to get anywhere with this discussion, though. Thank you all for your thought-out replies! :D
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 16:35, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::A few other things I'd like to note:
:::Naturalism: You argue that naturalistic explanations are atheistic. Yet, you yourself probably use them. If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them? Naturalistic explanations are used by scientists because they actually teach us something about the world. No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it. Without ''somebody'' first proposing to use [[methodological naturalism]] to investigate the world, we'd still believe that thunder was caused by Thor slamming his hammer, or that earthquakes were caused by Poseidon hitting the ground with his trident. It's just a more useful way to look at the world.
:::''"With atheism, nothing has any meaning."'' While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your ''own'' meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone. I love writing and that is my meaning but it may not be yours. It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.
:::''"Why trust what you think, when your thoughts are the result of chance?"'' Good point. It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review. But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?
:::--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 20:40, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Frey, people who have ''committed their lives to Christ'' are Christians, regardless of whether they see the Bible as word-for-word literal truth or not (I don't) and regardless of whether they follow its moral teachings or not. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: "''It seems as though you are saying that someone who believes in evolution is automatically not a true believer of whatever religion they happen to be.''": Assuming that question was directed at me, no, I'm not saying that at all (depending on what you mean by "true" believer). Perhaps my reply to Frey has clarified that.
:::: "''By the definition you both have apparently set forth as being Christian (that is, a literal belief in all of the Bible)...''": I think you have misread Frey (if he's the other one of "both"), and read into my comments something that is not there.
:::: "''I've also heard people say "why follow Christ if there was not a literal Fall, etc.," as if we need to believe that Genesis actually happened in order to realize that people are inherently wicked.''": Define "wicked" without invoking God or subjective opinion.
:::: "''Earth needs a Savior even if we evolved from apes.''": What does it need to be saved from? Again, no invoking of God nor subjective opinion.
:::: "''I'm just saying perhaps all the mythology surrounding a messiah only has to do with the time and place He was born.''": That might be true, if he was just a human being with a messiah complex. But if He is, as claimed, the Creator Himself, then your "what if" has no basis.
:::: "''Concerning Hubble, I have forgotten to note that you still seem to accept as true ... that the redshift of distant galaxies seems to indicate that they are quickly moving away from a certain point.''": Not from a "certain point", but away from us, and away from every other object in the universe.
:::: "''...the implication of these observations is still that all of the universe is quickly expanding outward ...--evidence enough of the Big Bang.''": No, evidence of outward expansion is evidence of outward expansion, not of what ''caused'' that outward expansion. The Big Bang is offered as a ''cause'' of that outward expansion. Some creationary scientists say that the outward expansion was directly caused by God, as the Bible in numerous places refers to God "stretching out the heavens", i.e. a different cause for the same observation.
:::: "''People still believe God is behind any number of naturalistic things.''": Yes, many people do hold two or more contradictory beliefs. We're funny like that. But maybe you were referring to something else, which I'll get to when I respond to your point about naturalism.
:::: "''I do not see how being the wind-up toy of an infinitely higher being is pleasing to you.''": That is not what I said and is inconsistent with what I meant.
:::: "''I have tasks for a stapler to do while it is in my possession, yet I can not even for a minute imagine that it would be pleasing to be a stapler.''": Do you work for an employer? Does he have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his "wind-up toy"? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?
:::: "''Should we envy robots because they have instructions that their designers have pre-programmed for them?''": Should we envy humans as conceived by atheists, where all our thoughts are the results of chemical reactions in our brains, which are simply the result of accidents (mutations, etc.), or should we envy humans as conceived by God Who gave us free will, the ability to decide things for ourselves (including the ability to decide whether or not to do the tasks he has for us)?
:::: "''This is why free market capitalism works.''": No, that works because we have free will and God-provided intelligence rather than just acting according to the chemical impulses in our brains.
:::: "''Speaking as a conservative, I believe in personal responsibility--theologically AND economically.''": So do I. But how can you be held responsible unless you have free will? You can't be held responsible if you are simply acting according to those chemical process in your brain, as atheists believe.
:::: "''God is complicated. Even some Christian theologians, including Alvin Plantinga, have said that by portraying Him as simple you are watering down his "personal" aspect.''": Oh? It was Plantinga who was quoted in the box above, and who went on to say (see the same reference), "...it is far from obvious that God is complex.".
:::: "''Finally, since a mutation produces something new, whatever that new thing is, it is creating "new information" ''by definition.": By ''what'' definition? If you take a recipe, for example, that has ''information'' on what ingredients to use in a cake, and in copying the recipe there is a copying mistake (mutation), so that "flour" now reads "blour", what you have is not ''information'', but ''corruption'', because it has ''lost meaning''.
:::: "''You are saying it doesn't make something new since it draws from an already existing set of variation, but that is unavoidable.''": Exactly. It's unavoidable that the only source of information is ''existing'' information: there's no source of ''new'' information.
:::: "''The genetic code that makes up life on Earth has been the same for approximately 4 billion years.''": The "approximately 4 billion years" is according to the atheistic origins myth; I don't accept that.
:::: "''It's been the same amino acids, proteins, etc. that have simply been rearranged in small successive steps to eventually produce increasingly evolved things.''": Why do so many evolutionists keep repeating their theory as though it is evidence? I ''know'' that's the claim. I ''dispute'' the claim. In trying to convince me, you should supply argument from evidence and logic, not simply repeat the claim as though it constitutes evidence.
:::: "''If you lose your keys do you look for a naturalistic explanation or do you think a mischievous demon has stolen them?''": Naturalism is the belief that nature ''is all there is''. It is not simply one possible explanation, but the only possible explanation. Don't believe me? Try convincing a naturalistic scientist that he should ''on occasions'' consider the option that "God did it". No, he will tell you that God can ''never'' be considered. I ''can'' consider both "is God responsible" or "is it something natural?", but a ''naturalistic'' scientist will exclude the former as even a consideration. (And actually, I don’t look for a natural explanation: I look for the keys! And I sometimes ask God to help me find them. And it appears to help.)
:::: "''No one is angry at meteorologists for using naturalism to study the weather, instead of just saying Zeus does it.''": First, we are talking about how things ''started'', not how they ''operate now''. Second, why don't they say "Zeus does it"? Is it because (a) Zeus ''doesn't'' do it, or (b) because they willingly refuse to consider Zues? Modern science started on the foundation that God created, and that he created mechanisms, such as the laws of physics, that we can study. So historically, we study meteorology from what you call a "naturalistic" viewpoint because we believe that's how God set things up. If we assume that God wasn't involved, then we have no basis for assuming that the laws of physics, for example, will be the same tomorrow as they are today. That assumption historically comes straight from assuming that the God of the Bible was responsible for it. See [[Natural science#Beginnings]].
:::: "''While this is true in the sense that nothing has any supernatural meaning, therein lies the intellectual maturity of nonbelief. You have to find your own meaning in life, and it's going to be different for everyone.''": That sounds like intellectual snobbery, not maturity! If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented, not real and absolute. Which means that it's not ''meaning'' at all.
:::: "''It is communistic to prescribe one singular meaning for everyone.''": Nonsense. It's not communistic to describe things as they are.
:::: "''It's generally wrong to trust what humans believe unless it's been verified by the scientific method and individual prejudices have been filtered out by peer review.''": All of which also involve those thoughts resulting from chance. So the "verification" that you speak of is not verification at all. You've not answered the question.
:::: "''But the same argument goes both ways; why trust what you think if you believe that everyone has inherited an implicit sinfulness from the first man?''": Because that sinfulness has ''damaged'', not ''destroyed'' our abilities. Those incredible God-given abilities are still there, though imperfect.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK, forgive my ignorance, but then what's the problem with committing your life to Christ and still believing in evolution? Is it a morality issue? Is it that God is less great if people believe that He didn't have a direct hand in our creation?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is "wicked." There is no reason for me to think that if you, Phillip, lost your faith, you would suddenly just go around murdering people. Of course you wouldn't!

Besides, gods have not always been ethical. Ancient gods demanded blood sacrifices (some cultures thought the sun wouldn't rise without this ritual)! Now, it's also true that the Christian God demanded sacrifices as well (at least until the [[Jesus|Final Sacrifice]]). But the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so "moral" is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.

Yes, the free market works because of "free will," which is present in Christianity but is '''inherent''' in atheism! What's that you say? The brain has ''chemicals''? I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists. Repeating the fact over and over does not make it a bad thing. If there weren't any chemicals in our brains, we wouldn't have any thoughts! This is why depression medication works--our moods and thoughts are chemical-based. Besides, the fact that our thoughts are chemical impulses only becomes a problem when those very chemicals have imbalances--which explains very well why some people become deranged!

And what's all this about "random chance." Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.

"What do we need to be saved from?" Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place. Of course, the notion of Jesus being a Messiah because he said so also operates on the assumption that he actually existed and that the Gospels are a faithful representation of his sayings--despite the fact that the four we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time.

I'm glad you recognize the evidence of outward expansion as just that: evidence of outward expansion. Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an "atheistic myth," but I call it math.

Also, I'm sorry about the Plantinga quote. My source was his book ''Does God Have a Nature?'' But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be "simple" if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc. Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.

"If the meaning is going to be different for everyone, that means that the meaning is relative and invented." You're right! Why is that a problem?
Eating ice cream still means something to me ''right here and now'' even if ultimately it will mean nothing. I'm not going to force someone who doesn't want ice cream to eat ice cream. We make a very serious error to state that meaning must be the same for everyone, and that's what it means to believe in a free market!

Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that "Zeus did it". It appears to be paying off well for them. You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past, but I disagree, since naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder.

By the way, yes I indeed have an employer but I would prefer some day to be a self-employed writer. There is nothing more inspiring than the image of a self-made individual (I do not understand why so many nonbelievers become socialists; the free market is right up their alley!).

Thank you very much for reading my responses. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

:"''I do not think that we necessarily need a God to decide what is "wicked."''": Yet you offered no alternative definition. Your comment about what I might do if I lost my faith has nothing to do with how wickedness is ''defined'', which is what I asked. So you haven't answered the question.
:"''Besides, gods have not always been ethical.''": I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these "gods", other than the God of the Bible, exist, so let's leave them out of it, okay?
:"''...the fact that our modern interpretation of God is now so "moral" is a reflection of the overall progression of our ethics as a species.''": Is it? I don't believe so. You seem to be arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented. I don't believe that. So in order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing! See [[user:Philip J. Rayment/How to debate]].
:"''..."free will" ...is '''inherent''' in atheism!''": Yet you fail to explain how. And you are contradicted by others, such as William Provine:
{{QuoteBox|Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4156/]}}
: See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5776/ here] and [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5928 here].
:"''I personally have no problem with accepting that neurochemistry exists.''": Neither do I. I was talking about whether that's ''all'' there is.
:"''Evolution is NOT random, it operates on a fixed rule which is ALWAYS predictable: Organisms well-suited for their environment will survive, the others will not. It's not a random selection at all.''": Natural selection is not random, but the mutations—the claimed source of the novel features—that it supposedly acts on are.
:"''"What do we need to be saved from?" Ourselves! Collectivism! Totalitarianism! War! It should be obvious to believers and nonbelievers that the world is a sick, sad place.''": Define "sick" and "sad". I asked you to answer without invoking God or subjective opinion, but it appears to be subjective opinion that the things that you mention are things that are somehow bad. What defines them as being bad? Perhaps my question was not clear enough, but you didn't answer it.
:"''...the four [gospels] we have now were chosen hundreds of years after Christ over dozens of others made during His time''": No, that's an atheistic fallacy. The four gospels were accepted as such basically from when they were written. This fact was not ''formalised'' until a few centuries later, but it was always accepted. Most other claimants were not written during his lifetime, and in any case were never accepted as such.
:"''Working backwards mathematically everything seems to converge on a point in time 14 billion years ago. You call it an "atheistic myth," but I call it math.''": It was not the timescale that I was questioning (although that could be questioned), so much as the ''cause''. Working backwards to a time when the universe would have been a point does not say, for example, where that point came from nor what caused it to expand. That is, there is more than one possible explanation of the outward expansion. Don't confuse the ''explanation'' with the ''evidence''.
:"''But despite what he says or what anyone else says for that matter, I do not see--except for the purpose of framing a response to Occam's Razor--how anyone anywhere can even think that God could be "simple" if they also think of Him as having a personal quality, being infinite, omniscient, etc.''": So I'm supposed to accept your argument that is based on nothing more than your lack of imagination?
:"''Intelligent design advocates hollering at me about finding a watch in the forest must admit that a watchmaker is usually more complicated than a watch.''": Although a watchmaker ''is usually'' more complicated than the watch, that is not their argument. Their argument is not that the cause of complexity is greater complexity, but that the cause of complexity is an ''intelligent being''. It is you, not the ID people, who is arguing that the intelligent designer must be more complex.
:"''You're right! Why is that ["meaning" being relative] a problem?''": I was talking here about why things are the way they are; their ''purpose''. Meaning is based on the origin of something. What, for example, is the ''purpose'' of clothes? Why do we wear clothes (even in the warmest environments)? I would argue that it's because of the Fall. Meaning has to do with the ''intended purpose''. With atheism, there is no ''intention'', hence no purpose and no meaning, because it's all the result of an accident.
:"''Also, I am really, really glad that meteorologists decided not to even consider that "Zeus did it".''": So am I, but my question, which you didn't answer, is ''why'' they don't consider that.
:"'' You say naturalism isn't useful for looking at the past,...''": No, I did not. I said that it can't always explain the ''origins'' of things.
:"''...naturalism is used all the time in retracing the steps of an automobile accident, say, or a murder''": Natural explanations can be made of the working of a car, but those explanations say nothing about the ''origins'' of the car, which is not naturalistic.
:"''By the way, yes I indeed have an employer ...''": But nothing in that paragraph actually responded to my rebuttal of your argument!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:00, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

::::First of all, I apologize for the flippant tone in my previous response. It was rude. I'm sorry for it and I will attempt to be more courteous this time.

::::First, I will respectfully say that I am very aware that I am "''arguing from the presumption that God is something that man invented.''" This is so that I can show you how, from my individual perspective, the universe operates. You, in turn, will of course be arguing from the perspective that the Christian God exists and that the Bible is literally true. If either of us provide good arguments they will hold up and support the arguments' base presumptions.

::::"''...In order for your argument to carry any weight, I have to accept something that I don't believe and which you are not arguing!''" You are arguing things from a presumption that ''I'' don't believe either. Yet, if you provide good arguments (and you did), then it will be helpful to the overall acceptance of your base assumption from which you made the argument.

::::''"Your comment ... has nothing to do with how wickedness is defined."'' While you are correct that there is no real meaning to "bad" and "good" under atheism, my assertion is that our concepts of what God thinks is "good" or "bad" is, in fact, a reflection of what we instinctively perceive to be positive or negative attributes. What I mean by this is that there are certain things that an individual would not like to have happen to them, and for evolutionary reasons, disgust for these things increases in later generations. Then, when we evolved to the point that for lack of a more complete understanding of the universe, we attributed a fatherly face to nature (which we called God), we believed that God was against the things that naturally we didn't want to have happen to us. For example, it is not sound, from a Darwinist perspective at least, to enjoy being killed. Thus, "no killing" becomes in our early minds a commandment of nature, and thus of God. If morality was unique only to the Christian God, why do all cultures everywhere agree on a few basic moral laws--no murder, no theft, no rape, no lying, etc.? Because we have always defined what is wicked based on what we do not want to have happen to ourselves.

::::I believe that humans are animals--specifically, mammals. Most mammals seem to treat their own kind respectfully, despite that they do not (to the best of our understanding) believe in God. The image of a large pack of lions basking in the sun is a well-known one. To me, it is clear that this group is also a family, a circle of friends. Though they do not believe in God, and they do not have any of what we would call morals, they don't just start attacking each other, either. In fact, they are known for lazily lying in the sun. Now, I'm not saying the wild is a completely peace-loving environment. Of course lions have attacked other lions. My point is that it appears to be no more frequent than the rate at which humans attack other humans. If evolution is true, then we are mammals and we should expect that humans treat each other about as well as would other mammals, and this appears to be the case.

::::Again, all of this is framed from within my perspective. This is only my speculation about how "morals" have developed under the model of naturalism. If my argument makes sense, than it is a boon for naturalism. If it does not make sense, then it is not helpful to naturalism.

::::"''I'm sure that neither you nor I believe that these 'gods' ... exist.''" That is exactly my point. None of those gods actually existed and were instead imagined by people who wanted definitive answers to things that they did not yet have the methodology to accurately understand. And you can easily see that. But would you have been able to see that if you were alive when people believed in these gods? If you lived during the time of the ancient Aztecs and all you had been told from your birth was about Aztec gods, and everyone in your nation believed in the Aztec gods, and the people who did not believe in the Aztec gods were considered rude and unreasonable, would you have been able to see that the gods did not in fact exist? Can you not now see that the Christian God is no different? Respectfully, I will not leave past gods out of the discussion because they are crucial to the understanding of what I mean; the way you see those old, ancient gods is how I see all gods.

::::I will again state that free will is inherent in atheism because of the fact there is not a higher being watching over us. Just because one atheist or even a million atheists think there is not free will doesn't mean all atheists believe that too. Besides, even if there is not such a thing as free will, how would we, from observation, even be able to know that? More to the point of the matter, how can free will really even exist under Christianity? When God created me, he must have known I would grow up to not believe in Him. How is there free will if God already knows what each of us is going to do? Even if I made the choice myself, it still can't be free will because God created me knowing I ''only'' could have made that particular choice.

::::"''Do you work for an employer? Does he [she!] have tasks for you to do? Does that mean that you are his 'wind-up toy'? Assuming you enjoy your job, why wouldn't those tasks be pleasing to you?''" As I said, I would prefer to be self-employed because I want to define my own agenda, and work according to my own desire. You may be pleased by the idea of fulfilling tasks that a God or an employer has assigned to you, but I do not personally find such an idea comforting or pleasing, and instead prefer to be in charge of my own life, and I don't want to let anyone else decide for me my own "meaning."

::::And lastly, as for why scientists don't want to consider that Zeus or any other god is responsible for something is because thinking that way clearly doesn't yield any useful results. Look around you; Computers, cars, cell phones... All of these work because someone built something under the assumption that asking God or any other kind of spirit to make them work would not be useful. You might be of the opinion that scientists use naturalism because they want to subtly push their atheism. While many scientists are indeed atheists, you are confusing cause and effect. It's a good thing that naturalism is the basis of science. It actually allows us to learn things about reality.

::::In the past whatever mysterious phenomena that was not understood was attributed to gods or spirits. Every culture did this. But, as thousands of years has shown, everything once believed to be supernatural or mystical actually has quite a mundane, naturalistic cause.

::::People used to think that sickness and disease were caused by evil spirits and were best dispelled by a witch doctor or some kind of incantation. Aren't you glad that some ''naturalist'' came along, decided that there must be a better explanation, and so discovered bacteria and germs and developed ''medicine''?

::::People used to think Zeus ran the weather. Now we have meteorology. People used to think Poseidon caused earthquakes. Now we have geology. Clearly, everything that we once thought was caused by a God is, in fact, caused by nature. Based on all of this I made the educated guess that there aren't actually any gods or spirits or anything supernatural at all--if past discoveries are any indication.

::::This is why we can look over "holes" in evolution theory or Big Bang theory (that, and there is already enough evidence to allow us to conclude evolution is true despite the small holes). It's not "blind faith," it's my logic telling me that some day there will be an answer for those holes and just like disease, the weather, and earthquakes, the answer will not be "God did it." The rest of the philosophy follows.

::::Very respectfully, thank you. --[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 19:48, 28 August 2008 (EDT)

== ??? ==

You can't prove that God did'int send jesus to more than one planet.

It's foolish to think that God would make litery quadrillion apon quadrillions of galaxy each containg possibley millions of star systems just so one planet of people could live.

It's illogical and since God can't fail and doing anything illoligical is a failure that proves there life on other planets.(as much as anyone elses random "proof" its realy a matter of faith for me)

Talk:Death metal

2008-08-31T05:05:43Z

Xion:

i removed slipknot(industrial metal) ,rob zombie(industrial metal),white zombie(industrial metal) ,strapping young lad (thrash metal).Because there not death metal.

I also fixed the part about dethklok cause there not even a real band .

Talk:Death metal

2008-08-31T04:53:59Z

Xion:

i removed slipknot(industrial metal) ,rob zombie(industrial metal),white zombie(industrial metal) ,strapping young lad (trash metal).Because there not death metal.

I also fixed the part about dethklok cause there not even a real band .

Death metal

2008-08-31T04:52:49Z

Xion:

""Death Metal"" is a sub-genre of [[Heavy Metal]]. The genre is typically characterized by the use of heavily distorted guitars, harsh vocals that are low-pitched and/or growled, morbid lyrics, exceptionally fast-paced rhythms and melodies, frequent blast beats on drums, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

==Death Metal==

Death metal has been met with considerable hostility from society, mainly because of the socially unattractive themes, imagery, and stage personae surrounding many bands. It is typically seen as an underground form of music, in part because of its aggressive nature, and because the musicians often choose to remain obscure.

==Musical Style==

Death metal is known for its abrupt tempo, key, and time signature changes, as well as extremely fast and complex guitar and drumwork. Death metal may include chromatic chord progressions and a varied song structure, rarely employing the standard verse-chorus arrangement. These compositions tend to emphasize an ongoing development of themes and motifs.

The main controversy in death metal, however, is over it's vocals and lyrics.

===Vocals===

Death metal vocals are often guttural roars, grunts, snarls, and low gurgles referred to as death growls.

===Lyrics===

Death metal's lyrical themes typically invoke Z-grade movie violence, and may also extend to contain themes of [[Satanism]], criticism of [[religion]], [[Occult]]ism, [[rebellion]], and various anti-[[Christian]] sentiments.

==Bands==

The two death metal bands which have by far received the most mainstream success are [[Cannibal Corpse]] and [[Dethklok]].

===Cannibal Corpse===

[[Cannibal Corpse]] prides itself on overtly [[violent]] and [[sex]]ual songs and album [[art]]work as nothing more than an extreme form of over-the-top entertainment.

Some of [[Cannibal Corpse]]'s song titles include "Hammer-Smashed Face", "Rotted Body Landslide," "Born In A Casket," "Every Bone Broken," and "Rancid Amputation."

They were banned from displaying the cover art or lyrics of and playing any of the songs from their first 3 albums in Germany until 2006 because "A woman saw someone wearing one of our shirts, I think she is a schoolteacher, and she just caused this big stink about it. So we can’t play anything from the first three records. And it really sucks because kids come up and they want us to play all the old songs — and we would — but they know the deal."- George Fisher, Cannibal Corpse vocalist.

"All our songs are [[Edgar Allen Poe|short stories]] that, if anyone would so choose they could convert it into a [[motion picture|horror movie]]. Really, that's all it is. We like [[evil|gruesome]], scary movies, and we want the lyrics to be like that. Yeah, it's about [[murder|killing people]] [...] And anyone who gets upset about it is ridiculous" -George Fisher.

===Dethklok===

Dethklok is a parody band comprised of one man brendon small and a drummer.
It was created for the animated show Metalocalypse wich is a parody of all accspects of extreme metal.

Dethklok even has its own [[cartoon]] series airing at around 2:00 AM on [[Sunday]]s. The series called [[Metalocalypse]], it is extremely gory and [[Satan]]ic, and is highly inappropriate for [[children]].

Dethklok's lyrics, however, are considerably more toned down than those of [[Cannibal Corpse]]. And they sometimes use verse-chorus arrangement in their songs.

==List of Death Metal Bands==

* 3 Inches of Blood
* Behexen
* Cannibal Corpse
* Death
* Deathchain
* Death To All
* Deicide
* Desert Rain
* Dethklok
* Devourment
* Hatebreed
* Gothzilla
* GWAR
* Immolition
* Megasus
* Necrophobic
* Planet Piss
* Santourum
* Six Feet Under
* Skitsystem
* Slayer
* Spacum
* Suicide Silence
* Taranchula
* Vader

===Sea Also===
[[Black Metal]]

Talk:Death metal

2008-08-31T04:52:21Z

Xion: New page: i removed slipknot ,rob zombie ,white zombie ,strapping young lad .Because there not death metal. I also fixed the part about dethklok cause there not even a real band .

i removed slipknot ,rob zombie ,white zombie ,strapping young lad .Because there not death metal.

I also fixed the part about dethklok cause there not even a real band .

Death metal

2008-08-31T04:50:31Z

Xion:

""Death Metal"" is a sub-genre of [[Heavy Metal]]. The genre is typically characterized by the use of heavily distorted guitars, harsh vocals that are low-pitched and/or growled, morbid lyrics, exceptionally fast-paced rhythms and melodies, frequent blast beats on drums, and complex song structures with multiple tempo changes.

==Death Metal==

Death metal has been met with considerable hostility from society, mainly because of the socially unattractive themes, imagery, and stage personae surrounding many bands. It is typically seen as an underground form of music, in part because of its aggressive nature, and because the musicians often choose to remain obscure.

==Musical Style==

Death metal is known for its abrupt tempo, key, and time signature changes, as well as extremely fast and complex guitar and drumwork. Death metal may include chromatic chord progressions and a varied song structure, rarely employing the standard verse-chorus arrangement. These compositions tend to emphasize an ongoing development of themes and motifs.

The main controversy in death metal, however, is over it's vocals and lyrics.

===Vocals===

Death metal vocals are often guttural roars, grunts, snarls, and low gurgles referred to as death growls.

===Lyrics===

Death metal's lyrical themes typically invoke Z-grade movie violence, and may also extend to contain themes of [[Satanism]], criticism of [[religion]], [[Occult]]ism, [[rebellion]], and various anti-[[Christian]] sentiments.

==Bands==

The two death metal bands which have by far received the most mainstream success are [[Cannibal Corpse]] and [[Dethklok]].

===Cannibal Corpse===

[[Cannibal Corpse]] prides itself on overtly [[violent]] and [[sex]]ual songs and album [[art]]work as nothing more than an extreme form of over-the-top entertainment.

Some of [[Cannibal Corpse]]'s song titles include "Hammer-Smashed Face", "Rotted Body Landslide," "Born In A Casket," "Every Bone Broken," and "Rancid Amputation."

They were banned from displaying the cover art or lyrics of and playing any of the songs from their first 3 albums in Germany until 2006 because "A woman saw someone wearing one of our shirts, I think she is a schoolteacher, and she just caused this big stink about it. So we can’t play anything from the first three records. And it really sucks because kids come up and they want us to play all the old songs — and we would — but they know the deal."- George Fisher, Cannibal Corpse vocalist.

"All our songs are [[Edgar Allen Poe|short stories]] that, if anyone would so choose they could convert it into a [[motion picture|horror movie]]. Really, that's all it is. We like [[evil|gruesome]], scary movies, and we want the lyrics to be like that. Yeah, it's about [[murder|killing people]] [...] And anyone who gets upset about it is ridiculous" -George Fisher.

===Dethklok===

Dethklok is a parody band comprised of one man brendon small and a drummer.
It was created for the animated show Metalocalypse wich is a parody of all accspects of extreme metal.

Dethklok even has its own [[cartoon]] series airing at around 2:00 AM on [[Sunday]]s. The series called [[Metalocalypse]], it is extremely gory and [[Satan]]ic, and is highly inappropriate for [[children]].

Dethklok's lyrics, however, are considerably more toned down than those of [[Cannibal Corpse]]. And they sometimes use verse-chorus arrangement in their songs.

==List of Death Metal Bands==

* 3 Inches of Blood
* Behexen
* Cannibal Corpse
* Death
* Deathchain
* Deathclock
* Death To All
* Deicide
* Desert Rain
* Dethklok
* Devourment
* Hatebreed
* Gothzilla
* GWAR
* Immolition
* Megasus
* Necrophobic
* Planet Piss
* Santourum
* Six Feet Under
* Skitsystem
* Slayer
* Spacum
* Suicide Silence
* Taranchula
* Vader

===Sea Also===
[[Black Metal]]

Black Metal

2008-08-31T04:47:49Z

Xion:

'''Black Metal''' is an extreme, and explicitly [[Satan]]ic, anti-[[Christian]], and violent subgenre of [[Heavy metal music]]. However spme bands such as Norway's Immortal do not take use these lyrical themes and tend to focus on fantasy subjects. Black Metal was first developed by many different bands from across [[Europe]], but was first popularized by the media attention surrounding several [[Norway|Norwegian]] bands and the various murders and arsons their members were involved in in the early 90's. Since then black metal has gained an underground following with fans and bands appearing all over the world. While less common now, the violence and mayhem that marked the early black metal scene persists to this day, with violence, killings, and vandalism inspired by black metal bands occurring sporadically but not infrequently across the globe.

== History ==

The first wave of black metal was started in early 1980s. Bands like Venom, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Celtic Frost were developing a heavier and more extreme style of heavy metal.<ref name = "dunn" >Dunn, Sam: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. 2005.</ref> Bands were strongly fascinated by the occult.<ref name = "kahnharris" >Kahn-Harris, Keith: Extreme metal: Music and culture on the edge. Oxford: Berg, 2007. ISBN 1-84520-399-2.</ref> For example Mercyful Fate's King Diamond belongs to [[Church of Satan]] as well as many other black metal musicians. Black metal genre was named by Venom album named ''Black Metal'',<ref name="murder"/> and nowadays Venom and Bathory have maybe the greatest respect in black metal scene by modern black metal bands.<ref name = "kahnharris" />

Second wave of black metal was born mainly in Norway, by bands such as Mayhem, Burzum, Darkthrone and Emperor.<ref name = "dunn" /> Those band styles were even more extremer than first wave and commonly the term 'black metal' refers just to the second wave. Also, the crimes in black metal were mostly part of the second wave rather than the first wave. Nowadays bands like Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth have made black metal almost part of the mainstream.<ref name="dimmu borgir">[http://www.decibelmagazine.com/features/jun2007/dimmuborgir.aspx Dimmu Borgir] Decibel Magazine</ref> However, many old school black metallers claim that modern sounding black metal by symphonic and melodic bands (like Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth) aren't 'true' black metal.<ref name = "amazon" >Haikara, Karl: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/35IDCE6P5JQOZ So you'd like to... Get into true Norwegian Black] Metal amazon.com.</ref> For them, true Satan worshippers, it's too light that some bands aren't [[Church arsons|burning churches]] though those bands are still very dangerous and satanist.

== Sub genres ==

===Blackened Death Metal===
An even more violent style of black metal, which also combines the vividly graphic depictions of killing that characterize the lyrics of the genre known as [[death metal]] with the music of black metal. The style targets [[Christians]], and openly tells its followers to go out, [[torture]], and kill the entire Christian population, as a means of earning favor with [[Satan]].

===Pagan Black Metal===
Many Black Metal bands adopt idealogical tenants of [[Paganism]] as a way of opposing Christianity. Pagan symbols, such as rune script, sunwheels, Celtic crosses, and Thor's hammers frequently adorn Pagan Black Metal bands covers and themes from pre-Christian European mythology permeate their lyrics.

===Christian Black Metal===
Christian Black Metal (often known as Unblack Metal) is a highly controversial style of Black Metal that contains lyrics which attack Satanic ideology, glorify Christianity and are opposed to [[Sin]]. Musically they are similar to secular and Satanic black metal bands.

==List of Black Metal Bands==
* Abruptum
* Antaeus
* Arkhon Infaustus
* Barathrum
* Bathory
* Beherit
* Bethlehem
* Blut Aus Nord
* Burzum
* Celtic Frost
* Cradle of Filth
* Darkthrone
* Dimmu Borgir
* Dissection
* Dolorian
* Emperor
* Enslaved
* Enthroned
* Forgotten Tomb
* Gallhammer
* Gorgoroth
* Graveland
* Graveworm
* Hellhammer
* Immortal
* Impaled Nazarene
* Katatonia
* Leviathan
* Lucifugum
* Marduk
* Mayhem
* Mercyful Fate
* Naglfar
* Nargaroth
* Necrophobic
* Negură Bunget
* Nokturnal Mortum
* Nortt
* Old Man's Child
* Sarcófago
* Satanic Warmaster
* Satyricon
* Sear Bliss
* Sodom
* Spektr
* Striborg
* Summoning
* Trollech
* Velvet Cacoon
* Watain
* Wolves in the Throne Room
* Xasthur
==List of christian black metal bands==
Admonish
Antestor
Crimson Moonlight
Drottnar
Extol (early)
Fearscape
Frosthardr
Frost Like Ashes
Holy Blood
Horde
Kekal
Lengsel
Sanctifica
Slechtvalk
Vaakevandring

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Heavy Metal]]

Talk:Black Metal

2008-08-31T04:46:07Z

Xion: /* Bands */ new section

==List of bands==
I added it so parents reading this could get an idea of what names to be wary of when you look on your child's ipod, but it looks like an ugly block of text to me. If some one can think of a more elegant way to present it, that would be great.

That's me, btw [[User:Jewishfanofnsbm|Jewishfanofnsbm]] 16:08, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:Done. May I suggest alphabetizing? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:18, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
::Done. [[User:Jewishfanofnsbm|Jewishfanofnsbm]] 16:39, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Moving ==

This should be moved under name [[Black metal]] because Black Metal is name of Venom album, and black metal name for music style. --[[User:Miihkali|Miihkali]] 17:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bands ==

I added some christian black metal bands to the list with (christian) beside them and i removed venom from the list since its a death metal band not a black metal band.

Black Metal

2008-08-31T04:42:49Z

Xion:

'''Black Metal''' is an extreme, and explicitly [[Satan]]ic, anti-[[Christian]], and violent subgenre of [[Heavy metal music]]. However spme bands such as Norway's Immortal do not take use these lyrical themes and tend to focus on fantasy subjects. Black Metal was first developed by many different bands from across [[Europe]], but was first popularized by the media attention surrounding several [[Norway|Norwegian]] bands and the various murders and arsons their members were involved in in the early 90's. Since then black metal has gained an underground following with fans and bands appearing all over the world. While less common now, the violence and mayhem that marked the early black metal scene persists to this day, with violence, killings, and vandalism inspired by black metal bands occurring sporadically but not infrequently across the globe.

== History ==

The first wave of black metal was started in early 1980s. Bands like Venom, Bathory, Mercyful Fate and Celtic Frost were developing a heavier and more extreme style of heavy metal.<ref name = "dunn" >Dunn, Sam: Metal: A Headbanger's Journey. 2005.</ref> Bands were strongly fascinated by the occult.<ref name = "kahnharris" >Kahn-Harris, Keith: Extreme metal: Music and culture on the edge. Oxford: Berg, 2007. ISBN 1-84520-399-2.</ref> For example Mercyful Fate's King Diamond belongs to [[Church of Satan]] as well as many other black metal musicians. Black metal genre was named by Venom album named ''Black Metal'',<ref name="murder"/> and nowadays Venom and Bathory have maybe the greatest respect in black metal scene by modern black metal bands.<ref name = "kahnharris" />

Second wave of black metal was born mainly in Norway, by bands such as Mayhem, Burzum, Darkthrone and Emperor.<ref name = "dunn" /> Those band styles were even more extremer than first wave and commonly the term 'black metal' refers just to the second wave. Also, the crimes in black metal were mostly part of the second wave rather than the first wave. Nowadays bands like Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth have made black metal almost part of the mainstream.<ref name="dimmu borgir">[http://www.decibelmagazine.com/features/jun2007/dimmuborgir.aspx Dimmu Borgir] Decibel Magazine</ref> However, many old school black metallers claim that modern sounding black metal by symphonic and melodic bands (like Dimmu Borgir and Cradle of Filth) aren't 'true' black metal.<ref name = "amazon" >Haikara, Karl: [http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/35IDCE6P5JQOZ So you'd like to... Get into true Norwegian Black] Metal amazon.com.</ref> For them, true Satan worshippers, it's too light that some bands aren't [[Church arsons|burning churches]] though those bands are still very dangerous and satanist.

== Sub genres ==

===Blackened Death Metal===
An even more violent style of black metal, which also combines the vividly graphic depictions of killing that characterize the lyrics of the genre known as [[death metal]] with the music of black metal. The style targets [[Christians]], and openly tells its followers to go out, [[torture]], and kill the entire Christian population, as a means of earning favor with [[Satan]].

===Pagan Black Metal===
Many Black Metal bands adopt idealogical tenants of [[Paganism]] as a way of opposing Christianity. Pagan symbols, such as rune script, sunwheels, Celtic crosses, and Thor's hammers frequently adorn Pagan Black Metal bands covers and themes from pre-Christian European mythology permeate their lyrics.

===Christian Black Metal===
Christian Black Metal (often known as Unblack Metal) is a highly controversial style of Black Metal that contains lyrics which attack Satanic ideology, glorify Christianity and are opposed to [[Sin]]. Musically they similar to secular and Satanic black metal bands.

==List of Black Metal Bands==
* Abruptum
* Antaeus
* Anetestor (christian)
* Arkhon Infaustus
* Barathrum
* Bathory
* Beherit
* Bethlehem
* Blut Aus Nord
* Burzum
* Celtic Frost
* Cradle of Filth
* Darkthrone
* Dimmu Borgir
* Dissection
* Dolorian
* Emperor
* Enslaved
* Enthroned
* Extol (christian)
* Forgotten Tomb
* Gallhammer
* Gorgoroth
* Graveland
* Graveworm
* Hellhammer
* Horde (christian)
* Immortal
* Impaled Nazarene
* Katatonia
* Leviathan
* Lucifugum
* Marduk
* Mayhem
* Mercyful Fate
* Naglfar
* Nargaroth
* Necrophobic
* Negură Bunget
* Nokturnal Mortum
* Nortt
* Old Man's Child
* Sarcófago
* Satanic Warmaster
* Satyricon
* Sear Bliss
* Sodom
* Spektr
* Striborg
* Summoning
* Trollech
* Velvet Cacoon
* Watain
* Wolves in the Throne Room
* Xasthur

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Heavy Metal]]

Goth (subculture)

2008-08-31T04:40:30Z

Xion:

'''Goth''' is a term often given to a style of music, a type of dress, and a subculture; all of which were originally derived from bands such as Siouxsie & The Banshees ,Bahaus,And the cure
in the 1980's . [[Brian Warner|Marylin Manson]] is Sometimes mislabeled as goth. Goth fashion typically consists of a conspicuous affection for black clothing, black hair dye,black nails and eyeliner on both genders, pale skin, and striking application of cosmetics, though this general fashion style is not exclusive to goths nor necessarily used by all goths. It is often labeled as [[Satan]]ic or anti-[[Christian]] in nature, although a large Christian Goth community exists, and Goths are not necessarily anti-Christian.( see christiangoth.com )

[[Category:Culture]]

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2008-08-31T04:39:35Z

Xion: /* Christiangoth.com */ new section

I don't think it's quite accurate to associate Goths with anti-religious sentiment, especially as I know people who are associated with Christian Goth ministries that get people to go to church who never would otherwise. I will concede that it's a stereotype, but it's not essential to the identity of being a Goth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== manson ==

marylin manson is in no way goth i am insulted the proper thing to say would be band like sioux and banshes and bahuas the firrt goth band so im going to change it. manson is metal.

== Christiangoth.com ==

I think a link to christiangoth.com would be good.

Goth (subculture)

2008-08-31T04:38:42Z

Xion:

Goth (subculture)

2008-08-31T04:37:39Z

Xion:

'''Goth''' is a term often given to a style of music, a type of dress, and a subculture; all of which were originally derived from bands such as Siouxsie & The Banshees ,Bahaus,And the cure
in the 1980's sometimes [[Brian Warner|Marylin Manson]] is mislabeled as goth. Goth fashion typically consists of a conspicuous affection for black clothing, black hair dye,black nails and eyeliner on both genders, pale skin, and striking application of cosmetics, though this general fashion style is not exclusive to goths nor necessarily used by all goths. It is often labeled as [[Satan]]ic or anti-[[Christian]] in nature, although a large Christian Goth community exists, and Goths are not necessarily anti-Christian.

[[Category:Culture]]

Talk:Goth (subculture)

2008-08-31T04:35:49Z

Xion: /* manson */ new section

Talk:Pentagram

2008-08-30T23:30:06Z

Xion:

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

My removal of the boring "Satanic" stuff reflects only my personal taste and is not meant as a Sysop Action. But I'd still like to know why anyone would think it's important for us to have info about that.

Should it go into the article on [[Satanism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:15, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think is boring and I think it's quite interesting. Our American forefathers chose the star on purpose --- to symbolize their belief that ours is a country where the spirit is prime. Only by understanding what the inverted star means do we understand with star in our flag means. Just an opinion. I've reverted and editted. Feel free to blast me. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 17:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== I added christian ==

i added a part about its christian uses since the upwright pentagram (or pentacle)use by christians predates wicca or satanism.I myself were one from time to time though its not the most popular thing to do as a christian ,But it opens doors to tell people the truth about the pentacle and how neo pagans hijacked it from us christians.It was found on the deasd sea scrolls.

Talk:Pentagram

2008-08-30T23:24:48Z

Xion: /* I added christian */ new section

Pentagram

2008-08-30T23:22:29Z

Xion:

The '''Pentagram''' (or Pentacle) depicts a five-pointed star circumscribed within a circle. Typically one of the points is in the upward position and each "arm" of the start represents an [[alchemy | alchemist]]'s element: [[earth]], [[wind]], [[fire]], [[water]]. The fifth arm represents the "fifth element" ("quintessence"). This fifth element is composed of "ether" and represents the spirit. <ref>http://www.angelfire.com/id/robpurvis/pentagram.html</ref>

This orientation of the star, with the spirit held up above the elements, is part of the [[freemasonry | masonic]] symbolism incorporated in the [[American flag]].

Many people (perhaps wrongly) believe the Pentagram is associated with [[Satanism | Satanic belief]] or worship, but the Satanic Pentagram is an '''Inverted Pentagram'''. Rather than one point at the top of the star, the Inverted Pentagram depicts two points at the top of the star and one at the bottom. In this fashion it also represents a goat's head (and vice versa). In the Inverted Pentagram, the spirit is below the elements. This may represent the idea of idea of putting the material world and thus carnal desires before the spiritual health.

Medieval Christians believed it to symbolise the five wounds of Christ. The pentagram/pentacle was believed to protect against witches and demons.

The pentagram figured in a heavily symbolic Arthurian romance: it appears on the shield of Sir Gawain in the 14th century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. As the poet explains, the five points of the star each have five meanings: they represent the five senses, the five fingers, the five wounds of Christ, the five joys that Mary had of Jesus (the Annunciation, the Nativity, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and the Assumption), and the five virtues of knighthood which Gawain hopes to embody: noble generosity, fellowship, purity, courtesy, and compassion.

Probably due to misinterpretation of symbols used by ceremonial magicians, it later became associated with Satanism and subsequently rejected by most of Christianity sometime in the twentieth century.

<ref>http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Hall/7802/penta.html</ref><ref>http://www.lycos.com/info/pentagram--meanings.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[category:Satanism]]