Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Islam

2007-11-09T19:19:38Z

Archibald: /* Changing "Allah" to "God" */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that the Islamic usage of "Allah" is as wedded with Islamic culture as the usage of ancient Hebrew names for God in Judaism. Though Islam essentially worships the old testament "God" it seems beneficial to leave in the Allah reference.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:19, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2007-11-09T19:17:00Z

Archibald: /* We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::The role of an "encyclopedia" is not to convert others from other, "wrong" (i.e. "not my") points of view, but to unfold and present information. Certainly the information that Christians believe Christ to be the son of God is crucial, and so is the information that Muslims believe that doctrine to be a fabrication of Christ's later followers. Christian scripture has enough valid independent sources that I don't believe this to be true. Hmm. . . not sure where I'm going with this.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:17, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Islam

2007-11-09T19:13:40Z

Archibald: /* There is still misleading information in here */

Fine then. If this MUST contain mention of paganism, I'll go mention it in Christianity as well. It isn't false...

The first section of this article is factual.

The second half appears to be opinion. It is not a description of what U. S. policy is or has been, but of what the writer thinks it should be. Some statements in it ("The religion of Islam is one of the most, if not the most, violent religion in the world") seem far from objective. After all, it was not Muslims who started the Crusades. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:19, 8 February 2007 (EST)

"a substantial minority of accredited Western scholars believe that some Muslim beliefs, like those of the early Roman Catholic Church, system can be traced back to distinctly polytheistic antecedents" - This seems to be the sort of phrase that is attacked in Wikipedia. Every odd ball opinion can be traced to somewhere, but this is not worthy in the main article - in regard to Islam or Catholicism. [[user:stevendavy]]

The article has one major flaw, and that is that it distinguishes Allah as a separate god from that which is followed in the other abrahamic religions. This is fundamentally incorrect, The Christian, Jewish and Muslim god is the same god. The quote given is actually Sura 5: 77 and the Qu'ran is not contesting that a Christian god was another god, merely that Jesus was not the son of god but instead a prophet, thus, to claim that Jesus was the son of god in that sense is incorrect according to Muslims. Interestingly the quoted Sura 5: 73 actually reads "They who believe, and the Jews, and the Sabeites and the Christians - whoever of them believeth in God and in the last day, and doth what is right, on them shall come no fear, neither shall they be put to grief". Not quite so intolerant I think you'll agree. [[user:djtheblade]]

It seems to me that discussion of Islam in the context of "pig gods" is a subtle method of defamation. Rather than kitschy little tidbits of information, it would be nice to see a comprehensive list of facts including the pillars, the Sunni, Shi'i split, and Sharia.

I agree - it seems unnecessary and insulting. Why not remove it? - there is a good deal of more useful information that is left out of this article. [[User:Cletje|Cletje]]

:We should get rid of this rubbish. It may confuse those people who don't understand. It also tries to make fun of an important subject. --[[User:Czolgosz]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 14:31, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== There is still misleading information in here ==

I realize this is an emotional subject for many, but if the conservapedia can't manage to weed out the misleading and biased information, it will end up as the laughingstock that so many already assume it will become.

The end of the first paragraph says that Islam is growing quickly "mostly" because of high fecundity rates. Most data shows that high reproductive rates are important, but they are in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America where Christianity is showing its greatest gains as well. It's debatable whether there are more conversions from Christianity to Islam than vice versa (citing an interview with one person is not good evidence!), but both get most of their conversions from non judeo-christian-islam religions. So what possible point can there be for including this, except to make the conservapedia look biased?

What, you think conservapedia ISN'T Biased? Ha, considering it was set up as a reaction to the so called liberalized Wikipedia, it's done a pretty poor job of presenting fair and unbiased arguments. Conservapedia is just a polar opposite, it's not balanced at all.

::I agree and it makes me very disappointed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I see nothing wrong with either source making the claim Christian conversions outstrip conversions to Islam. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Presuming that it's true, yes. A link to concrete statistics would be necessary to legitimize such a statement.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 14:13, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== We should not shy away from speaking the Truth!!! ==

Conservapedia shouldn't be biased in a bad way, but we should definitely be putting across our point of view. It is obvious that Jesus was the son of G-d, and so any parts of Islam which contradict Christianity must be considered false. This page should also contain evidence that Christianity and not Islam is the one true faith. Surely we should not shy away from speaking the truth!!! -Mmeelliissssaa

Its obvious that Jesus was the son of God - that is in sense that Jesus is part of triad that is comprised of 3 equal parts, hence Jesus is God? Really! It was not even obvious to early Christians that this was the case. - anyone aware of the history of Christianity is aware of this. I suggest you Google "the Arian crisis" to find out more. If You mean that Jesus is the son of God, and the word son defines his rank with respect to God - that is less than, and seperate from, God, then you are outside the orthodox tradition, and are an Arian Christian. Not that I have a dog in this fight, I am an atheist. Yet your bias and question-begging(i,e. your conclusion that Islam must be false is based upon your presuppostion that your belief is true) needed to be attacked.

:Perhaps you would like to discuss one of our [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps she would like to acknowledge that her interpretation of 'the one true faith' is still entirely subjective. Salvation may be shared in a community but it is still a subjective and singular experience. It's not 'obvious' that Jesus was the son of god, that is merely your opinion, that would be like me saying that it is 'obvious' that creationism is false because popular scientific consensus says so. I'm not quick to dismiss people's opinions and outlooks on life, but I don't pass my own opinions off as undisputed objective fact. Your 'truth' is your personal salvation and not necessarily the same truth that other's will rejoice in.

:Perhaps we should focus on building an encyclopedic page about Islam, and leave the rants out. That can go at [[Criticism of Islam]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Five Pillars==
We should make clear these are the five '''Sunni''' pillars of Islam. The Shia Twelvers replace Shahadah with Wilayah. The Ismali have seven pillars, as do the Druze. Just lumping all of Islam together like this is like saying all Christians believe in transubstantiation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought that the "twelvers" were the Imams themselves. Does this mean that their laws replace the pillars? I am not well-versed on this aspect, perhaps you could add information, Dave. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Jihad, the "sixth" pillar, needs to be mentioned. And not jihad as in holy war against infidels, I mean jihad as including the personal and public jihads. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
: Isn't it greater (ie the struggle to reform the self) and lesser (ie the struggle to reform the Muslim community) Jihad? Oh, and it's not the 'sixth pillar', by any stretch. The Five Pillars are the Five Pillars. Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Spelling==

The apostrophe in "Qur'an" is between the "r" and "a," not after the "u." [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Islam and Judaism ==

There are title headings for Islam and Christianity as well as Islam and Paganism, but nothing for Islam and Judaism? I realize this is a sensitive topic, but by avoiding it aren't we leaving an incomplete article? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Muslims believe in the Resurrection==

Muslims do, in fact, believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Can someone change this, please?

:If I recall correctly, Muslims do not believe in the resurrection as portrayed in the Bible. If it would be changed, it needs to be properly specified what to put. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

Muslims believe that Jesus would judge during Judgement day with their prophet {{unsigned|Kaviii}}

== Islam and Paganism ==

I suggest either someone remove this section or show the other side of the arguement. This claim about Muslims worshipping a moon deity call Allah and Islam and it's moon-cult links have been refuted in this web site

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Allah/moongod.html

{{unsigned|Kaviii}}

I agree. Startoman24

:The moon-god worshipped in pre-Islamic Mecca was called Hubal. According to the muslims, the battle of Uhud showed Hubal to be inferior to Allah. This should most definitely be added to the article. [[User:Styxz|Styxz]] 19:15, 4 November 2007 (EST)

== Changing "Allah" to "God" ==

I should point out that while this would normally seem to make sense, that in Islam the title "Allah" goes beyond cultural Arabic. Islamic services in languages other than Arabic still use the title Allah. Conservations with Muslims either verbal or written will still see the use of the proper Allah.

I would say some mention should be made of this in the first paragraph before we make use of God throughout. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:50, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

== Human Sacrifice ==
I move that the line referring to early Islamic Human sacrifice should be removed because it states in the line that the claims are unverified, so they aren't fact. And an encyclopedia should post facts.

== revelation and transcription ==

Where it says ''revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, and despite his illiteracy, caused him to transcribe it '', it should add that in actual fact the Quran was first memorized by professional remembrancers, written down in an improvised way later, to be compiled years later. Believe in a miracle is one thing, information on the actual history should be a second [[User:Immaculada|Immaculada]] 21:44, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Bill Clinton

2007-10-01T04:32:52Z

Archibald: "Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls"

:I am going to have to rewrite this article for obvious reasons.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 00:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Too even-handed?[[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 22:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, I tend to think that the fact that the article claims that Clinton was impeached isn't greatly even-handed. I'm a conservative like any other person with reasonable political ideals, but I think we're sort of stretching credibility with this one. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Sorry, my apologies - he was impeached! I need to brush up on my American politics. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article name ==

I see my attempt at balancing this article was hastily deleted...

Yes, because your link entry was no help to the article at all. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] [[User talk:Jallen|talk]] 11:15, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, does this make sense to have as William Jefferson Clinton when he was known as Bill Clinton? I don't think that anyone seriously would move [[Julias Caesar]] to [[Gaius Julius Caesar]] or [[Plutarch]] to [[Mestrius Plutarchus]] and I don't see how these are substantially different. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:White House website says: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html William J. Clinton]
:Columbia Encyclopedia says: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/cl/ClintonB.html Bill Clinton]
:Encarta says: [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564341/Clinton_Bill.html Bill Clinton]
:Britannica says: [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9003019/Bill-Clinton Bill Clinton]
:American Heritage Dictionary says: [http://www.bartleby.com/61/2/C0410250.html Clinton, William Jefferson]
:Clinton Library is: [http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/ William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum]
:Gale's Biography Research Center says:
::Bill Clinton
::(American president, 1946-)
::Also known as: William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Clinton, William Clinton, William Jefferson Blythe
:and includes
::"Bill Clinton," in American Decades 1990-1999. Tandy McConnell, ed. Detroit: Gale Group, Inc., 2001.
::"Bill Clinton," in Current Leaders of Nations. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.
::"Bill Clinton," in Newsmakers. Cumulation issue. Gale Research, 1992. (A profile of the individual's personal life, career, and newsworthy achievements.)
::"William Jefferson Clinton", in Contemporary Authors Online.
::"Bill Clinton," in Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 6: World Leaders, 10th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

::I've moved the article to "Bill Clinton" and created redirects for all the other forms of the name.

:::[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Impeached? ==

From everything I've learned, Bill Clinton didn't get impeached. He was on the verge of being impeached and resigned. Article needs to be fixed if thats the case.

:I think you're thinking of [[Richard Nixon]]. Clinton _was_ impeached, but went on with running the country anyway. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Impeachment is a term not for removal, but for a vote of trial. President Clinton was impeached, and put on trial. He was not convicted. President Clinton was convicted in another matter, of a Felony. He lost his law license because of that perjury conviction. President Nixon was threatened with Impeachment, but never was there a vote, or trial. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Bill Clinton was convicted of a felony? cite, please? He gave up his law license and paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas bar in exchange for no criminal charges being filed.<ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/</ref>. It's not exactly scot-free or exoneration, but it's also not a felony conviction. -- [[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 03:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, one step ahead, it seems. He essentially pleaded "Nolo Contendre", and for doing so, was spared the humilation of being convicted. Sorry for my inexcuseable error in mistating a conviction, when on a technicality, he really wasn't. [http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/]

<blockquote>
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a disciplinary action never before taken against a sitting U.S. president, an Arkansas Supreme Court panel has filed suit to strip Bill Clinton of his license to practice law

"The conduct of Mr. Clinton ... was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct," the Arkansas State Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct declared in its five-page lawsuit, filed on Friday at about 3:45 p.m. (4:45 p.m. EDT) with the Pulaski County Circuit Court clerk in Little Rock.[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/30/clinton.disbarment.02/]</blockquote>
--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, he didn't plead nolo contendre either, ''because there weren't any charges filed''. Your quote isn't about a plea; it isn't even about charges being filed. It's about a lawsuit being filed. Civil cases aren't criminal. Lawsuits being filed aren't lawsuits being decided. Agreements to avoid charges aren't convictions, or guilty pleas, or even nolo contendre pleas.

In your mind, was Rush Limbaugh convicted of a felony in the oxycontin case? He paid a fine and agreed to drug testing for some number of years in exchange for charges not being filed. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

*What a throughly mean spirited and nasty person you must be. Let it go. I admitted my mistake. What has happened to you in your life to make you this way? I don't condone anyone in the public eye getting treatment others wouldn't get. It is no matter if its Clinton or Limbaugh, and that should be obvious. That you thought I would condone Limbaugh's illegal activities, and not Clinton's speaks to your mind-set. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: And that you would assume I thought knew the answer to my honest question speaks to yours. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 04:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bin Laden ==

This article goes to great lengths to link the rise of Bin Laden to Clinton, but the old blighter doesn't get a mention in the article on Dubya. Why so? (Need I ask!) [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

On that note, I'd like to ask why the Clinton page mentions minor, inaccurate statements but the page on our current president doesn't even mention a blemish on his presidential career. While Wikipedia articles do contain vandalism, their sysops do an excellent job at controlling it. Why can't we really be fair and unlock all the pages, and simply make our moderators do their job? --[[User:Aurum|Aurum]] 08:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:Saying its 'innaccurate" doesn't make it so; the page is locked precisely to prevent the type of vandalism you are suggesting of inserting innaccurate statements.

:BTW, what did [[Sandy Burglar]] do with all those documents, and why? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== Impeachment quote ==

it is totally unclear where "they have made promiscuous use of it" is supposed to fit in - maybe someone knows? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 17:21, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== The Senate subsequently voted to acquit Clinton. ==

Having this follow the bit about Flynt makes it look as though there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the offer and the acquittal. That may be the case, and it may be nothing more than an interesting coincidence. If it is the case, a charge of that gravity would need to be backed up with a reference, according to the C-pedia rules. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:Really? You suppose was cause-and-effect between Flynt blackmailing Senators for private conduct & [[Jim Jeffords]] jumping parties in 2001? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea, nor do I really care. My point is that the way the article is phrased IMPLIES a relationship without documenting it. You want that kind of implication to be on this website without any sort of evidence, that's fine by me. [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 14:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Let's look at the contrast; without it, the implication is the impeachment charges were all bogus and without foundation, and Clinton was somehow victimized. Whereas the historical record shows, Clinton defenders were quit upfront about using blackmail & a "scorched earth" policy to defend Clinton, and even went so far as naming names. Clinton defenders for example publicly claimed they had evidence of homosexual activity by [[Trent Lott]] in his college days, and judging by Lotts reaction to the House Impeachment as reported by House Judiciary Committee Councel [[David Schippers]], [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200012/ai_n8927884/pg_2] it's up to the reader to decide why the evidence in the Clinton Impeachment case was buried. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

So much for discussion, I guess. Look - if C-pedia wants to make the association between Flynt's seedy offer and the Senate's ruling a part of the article (an association which is about as subtle as a banjo as it's phrased here), so be it. At least edit it it so as to have the House and Senate results follow each other instead of being in separate paragraphs...and to spell "acquit" properly.

[[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

:::These are the facts: (1) Stephanoplous & Carville made public statements that others would be outed if Clinton was impeached; (2) Larry Flynt, an old frined of Carville and of Clinton's college roommate at George Washington University, [[Strobe Talbott]], publicly and in a high profile manner interfered with a Consitutional process by offering reward money for blackmail information, never mind if the information was true or not, and stated exactly why he did so; (3) the Senate voted to acquit. (4) Stephanoplous, Carville, Flynt, Clinton, and every Senator who voted to acquit is just going to have to live with those facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== Cocaine allegation ==

We need a source for the cocaine allegation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:22, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls" ==

That section title is misleading as it points toward ''suspicions'' but not hard evidence. The body of the section need not be changed but I would like to move that they section be retitled something like: "Cruise missile controversy".

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-10-01T04:19:17Z

Archibald:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Advertisement for the film.<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a documentary about [[global warming]] by former Vice President [[Al Gore]]. It is an entirely one-sided account which gives all the left's arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

Though the film acknowledges that global warming is a cyclical phenomenon occurring throughout the planet's existence (see [[climate cycles]]), it argues that human-caused global warming is a modern issue beyond the scale of previous global cycles.

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''Chicago Sun-Times''
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|}

== Awards ==
The film has received several awards:

*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006


==References==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
[[Category:Movies]][[Category:Global Warming]]

An Inconvenient Truth

2007-10-01T04:17:13Z

Archibald:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Al Gore has found a way to [[profit]] from [[global catastrophe]].<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a documentary about [[global warming]] by former Vice President [[Al Gore]]. It is an entirely one-sided account which gives all the left's arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

Though the film acknowledges that global warming is a cyclical phenomenon occurring throughout the planet's existence (see [[climate cycles]]), it argues that human-caused global warming is a modern issue beyond the scale of previous global cycles.

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''Chicago Sun-Times''
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|}

== Awards ==
Despite its many scientific inaccuracies, the film has received several awards:

*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006


==References==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
[[Category:Movies]][[Category:Global Warming]]

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

2007-10-01T04:15:07Z

Archibald: /* Edit */

Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)

==source==

do you really consider a townhall article reposted from Newsbusters a reliable source? Wow [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 19:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Do you really consider your comment intelligent? Wow. More enlightened would be you proving it false, or providing a better one. I understand to some people, a merit based site is new. Try it, you might actually find it liberating! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Edit ==

:How can an "unbiased" article have sentences such as "The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down hundreds of times in the last million years", or "Al Gore has found a way to profit from global catastrophe"? Have you watched the film? Al Gore does ''not'' ignore the fact of climate cycles. He includes his rebuttal in the film! You can disagree with his conclusions or his data but he does ''not'' ignore the criticisms of global warming.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:15, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

2007-10-01T04:12:43Z

Archibald: Edit

Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)

==source==

do you really consider a townhall article reposted from Newsbusters a reliable source? Wow [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 19:23, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Do you really consider your comment intelligent? Wow. More enlightened would be you proving it false, or providing a better one. I understand to some people, a merit based site is new. Try it, you might actually find it liberating! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:48, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Edit ==

:I am attempting to remove some of the bias from this article. I will leave in technically true sentences such as the "one-sided account" sentences, but will remove sentences such as "Al Gore has found a way to profit from global catastrophe."[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:12, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T04:10:37Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: At least 95% of [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. You'd be hard-pressed to identify counterexamples. It's a [[deceit]] to describe what a [[liberal]] is and to leave that out, as [[Wikipedia]] does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Read the article. Wikipedia doesn't leave it out. Read the whole article. Wikipedia is not hiding the information that the Democratic party in America generally supports state-funded abortion, but to state that "liberals believe such-and-such" or "Republicans believe such-and-such" is labelling and unfair. Again, I know many liberals (even university professors) who do not support abortion.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:10, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T04:01:06Z

Archibald: /* "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: At least 95% of [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. You'd be hard-pressed to identify counterexamples. It's a [[deceit]] to describe what a [[liberal]] is and to leave that out, as [[Wikipedia]] does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:*A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T04:00:48Z

Archibald: /* "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: At least 95% of [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[public school]]. You'd be hard-pressed to identify counterexamples. It's a [[deceit]] to describe what a [[liberal]] is and to leave that out, as [[Wikipedia]] does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:A "Pedant" is one who focuses on trivialities while ignoring the big picture. This word does not apply to my post. Wikipedia policy tries to avoid ANY date suffixing to avoid this type of controversy. The majority of the English-speaking world is now using the "C.E." system. Nevertheless, Wikipedia neither supports it nor discourages it. This cannot be bias. To research your claim, I jumped to five random historical articles on Wiki. Three used AD/BC dating, and two used no dating (just writing, for example, "The year 1300"). In my experience editors who terraform an article to change its dating system are usually disciplined. If I attempt to go through an article and append "AD" to every date, you can be sure my edit will be reverted by an editor. Again, Wiki neither discourages not supports any counting system.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 00:00, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T03:51:43Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberal philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T03:50:59Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.
:::::: I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberals philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T03:50:29Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that "liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.

I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberals philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-10-01T03:50:05Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}
{| align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[/Archives|Archives]]
|}



== National Enquirer revisited ==

Okay, there still isn't a source that says that Wikipedia is "The National Enquirer of the Internet." I took a look on Google and didn't see that quote applied to Wikipedia, reputable source or otherwise. Big-A, are you still going to defend use of that phrase on this article? It doesn't help Conservapedia's reputation to have an uncited claim on this article. Thank you, [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:00, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:The phrase has to come from somewhere, invented by someone. If Wikipedia editors behave as though they're writing articles for the ''National Enquirer'' and the other supermarket tabliods, then yes someone is going to call that site "the ''National Enquirer'' of the internet". If we see the similarites, then we're going to call it exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Right. I've added another citation for the comparison of Wikipedia to the National Enquirer, as examples can be easily found on the internet. In addition, many editors here feel likewise, so there is no disputing the truth of the statement about some making the comparison.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:31, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::: But no one ever said that it was "The National Enquirer of the Internet." They're just agreeing on something everyone should already know: Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. By the way, check the sources for your six-times-as-liberal example. Apparently the conservative quotient on Wikipedia is infinite. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 15:26, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:: You don't seem to understand what [[gossip]] is, and why it is wrong. The comparison of [[Wikipedia]] to the National Enquirer is not based on unreliability, though that is certainly a problem. It's based on their exploitation of [[gossip]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Wha?==

"Credible wikis, including Conservapedia, do not permit editing by anonymous IP addresses." I can't think of any other Wikis that don't permit editing by anonymous IP addresses. I suggest this bullet is removed. [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 22:41, 19 September 2007 (EDT)
::[[CreationWiki]] and [[ResearchID.org]] do not allow anonymous IP address editing. Here is another Wiki that does not allow anonymous IP editing: http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:05, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

==#71==
How, exactly, is this an example of bias on Wikipedia? It's a mistake on the part of the newspapers.
Oh, and I figured that, given that Archive9 doesn't actually exist, it would be appropriate to remove the link.
[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:44, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Sign your posts. Or they will be removed. Please don't remove objects or links added by Administrators. You make the same mistake as #71, repeating something and blaming others for it being added merely on the strength of opinion, or in that case, the newspapers. (Edit conflict, I see you came back and signed.) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not sure I follow. How am I making the same mistake as in #71? I'm not taking something from an unreliable source and reporting it as true, I'm just asking a question. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:52, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Wikipedias built-in biases allowed for the article's creation and remaining up. Then (and yes, it was a big mistake for some reporter to be using WP as a source, something not allowed by most major papers)someone else used it, and repeated it. If Wikipedia didn't have a mobocracy the article wouldn't have stayed in place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:03, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Then shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? On a slightly unrelated note, why did your last response break my sig on my original question? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:08, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Break your sig? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:23, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

::It made the linky all non-linky. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*What? I didn't unlink anything. I suggest you move on now. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:29, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't have an answer to my questions: shouldn't the point be that the mistake was left intact, not that a newspaper reprinted it? and How am I making the same mistake as in #71? If they're answered, I will be perfectly happy to move on. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

*Godspeed to you! Thanks for your help. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:39, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:*Guess that's a no. I'll be moving on now . . . [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 21:41, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
::move on??...move on??....MoveOn is a codeword for subversive infiltration..... [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Number 71 is [[Wikipedia]]'s error that was copied by a newspaper. Why do [[liberals]] have so much trouble with accountability??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:40, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

== Bias or Error? ==

*Out of the list, at least numbers 55, 56, 58, and 72 are examples of error, not bias.
:On a somewhat unrelated note, why is the "See also" section even there? It only contains one link, and the linked article doesn't exist.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

: Errors are often the result of bias. Your statement that something is an example "of error, not bias" is a non sequitur. It would be like saying that something is an example of "a crime, not sin."

: Each of the points you list can be attributed to Wikipedia's [[liberal]] bias, which includes [[gossip]], [[political correctness]] and lack of rigor. But thanks for your suggestion about deleting the empty link, which I did. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:20, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'll agree that errors can be the result of bias. Most of the errors on the list are. I can't see how these four are examples of bias, though.

::Also, your comparison of "of error, not bias" and "a crime, not sin" is incorrect. Crime, presumably, is necessarily sin. Error, on the other hand, is not necessarily bias. My statement also wasn't really a non sequitur, but I won't go into that.
::[[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

*You have that much boredom so you are forced to quibble, Masterbratac? "Errors" uncorrected (on purpose because of idealogical bias) for long periods of time, by the senior people at WP, become facts in the minds of many. It is another form of [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:*I still don't see how these four are bias. And, yes, I do have that much boredom. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 20:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:: If you deny what a [[liberal]] is, and what [[gossip]] is, then you're not going to be persuaded that these errors result from the bias. Two of the errors result from the promotion of [[gossip]] on [[Wikipedia]]; a third error results from [[political correctness], a type of [[liberal bias]]; and the fourth error results from denial of accountability, another type of [[liberal bias]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:19, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Read my comment again. I did not deny what a liberal is, nor did I deny what gossip is. Tell me, which of these errors have which causes? [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 23:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: I wish I had more time to respond now, and I wish I had confidence that further discussion would be productive. I'll try to explain one and see whether you simply adhere to your already-taken position.

:::: The concept of an [[elementary proof]] is well-known in [[mathematics]] and was widely taught to top [[mathematics]] students at least until 25 years ago. Yet [[Wikipedia]] refused for months to have an entry about it, and only relented when I pointed out here that MathWorld does have an entry.

:::: Why such resistance? Because many of the recent claims of proofs, such as Wiles' proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], are not [[elementary proof]]s and [[liberals]] don't want to admit that. [[Liberals]] prefer instead to claim that [[mathematician]]s today are smarter than the devoutly [[Christian]] [[mathematician]]s like [[Bernhard Riemann]] and [[Carl Gauss]]. Not so, and this omission of this entry on Wikipedia was due to [[liberal]] bias.

:::: Explained another way, [[liberals]] detest accountability, in this case the accountability of the rigorous criteria for an [[elementary proof]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::. . . I give up. If you're willing to believe something that ridiculous, there's no way I'm going to get a reasonable answer.
:::::I will say this: I believe that mathematicians today are smarter, in that they have access to more advanced techniques. However, in pure mathematical aptitude, I do not believe any modern mathematician can match the likes of Gauss, Riemann, or Euler. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 00:05, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Fine, then give up. But note that you never provided an alternative explanation for the omission of [[elementary proof]] on [[Wikipedia]], and the prolonged insistence by [[liberals]] there to continue to omit that basic concept. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:39, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I see no reason to provide an alternative to something so ridiculous that nobody could possibly believe it. Do you even read the things you write?
::::::: Also, since you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. I don't have to refute your claims; you have to support them. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 09:03, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: I'm disappointed: you abandoned reasoned discourse and resorted to name-calling. [[Liberals]] on [[Wikipedia]] did resist including an entry for [[elementary proof]]. I've explained why. You have not, and seem content to hurl insults that only discredit your own denial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: The only reason Wikipedia lacked such an article is because nobody bothered to create one. Now, if you had created the article, and it had been subsequently deleted, you would have a reasonable point. But you don't. You blame liberals for an omission you could have easily corrected yourself. [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 17:17, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Masterbratac, you're in denial about [[liberal bias]]. Just look at the archives for this page and you'll see people opposing an entry on [[elementary proof]]. Look at how [[Wikipedia]] delayed and delayed long after alerted to the omission before finally relenting and creating an entry on it. Even now Wikipedia's entry is inadequate, and it omits from its Paul Erdos entry his emphasis on [[elementary proof]]s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::: If elementary proofs are such a big deal, shouldn't you just link to a reputable source that explicitly says that they are a big deal? - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] 14:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::Andy, I did check those archives, and I found [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1#A_variety_of_comments|a post]] by JoshuaZ that said that he'd simply create the entry: "The lack of an article on elementary proof is disturbing and I am currently writing a draft." No fighting, no delaying. He saw it, he went to work. It's also the earliest reference to "elementary proof" I could find on the talk pages. The MathWorld stuff and the "fight" (which was not about the proof itself, but rather about its importance - something that easily counts as content discussion both here and on WP) apparently came up almost a month after the article had been created: [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2#Mathematics|Here]] is the discussion.
::::::::::::Put simply, I am unable to find the evidence that Wikipedia or anybody here delayed or opposed the creation of the article. Hence, I do not see the "bias" since anybody could have simply created an article - even you. Also, your "alerting" apparently was you simply posting that item on a page that was only made (in)famous in February, which is hardly "alerting" in my eyes. (If I wrote on some little-known LiveJournal about an error here, I shouldn't expect anybody to notice it.) Otherwise, please point out your attempt to create the article on Wikipedia or a talk page post where you mentioned it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 14:34, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::*Can you explain again what is [[liberal]] about the omission of [[elementary proof]]?
:::::*Can you name anybody who would not admit that Wiles proof is not elementary?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Bernhard Riemann]] that he used his Zeta function in an non-elementary proof of the prime number theorem?
:::::*Does it say anything about the political and religious orientation of [[Paul Erdos]] that he found an elementary proof for the prime number theorem? [[User:Order|Order]] 03:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Order becomes the question box here. No, I don't have to explain it again. See my edits above. Yes, many [[liberals]] do resist characterization of Wiles proof as not being elementary. Wikipedia's own entry resists it by omitting it. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wiles] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good on you that you answer at least a few of my questions. I admit that I can be at times a bit inquisitive. I personally do not care too much what Wikipedia says about Wiles' proof, nor that it omits ZFC. Wikipedia is good for looking up a laymans account of many mathematical concepts and their history, but it isn't exactly an authoritative source.

:::::Your statement was that many mathematicians deny the fact that Wiles proof is non-elementary. I am not sure why a mathematician would deny this fact; ZFC is fairly accepted while known to be problematic since equivalent to the well-ordering theorem. And the rest of Wiles' proof, to the extend that I know about it, doesn't strike me that elementary either. I asked you for the name of an mathematician who denies that Wiles proof is non-elementary?

::::: Unanswered, and maybe for a good reason, is what relation exists between Riemann's non-elementary proof and Erdos elementary proof of the prime number theorem, and their political and religious convictions. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia whitewashes article on man who lost Vietnam war. ==

While writing our stub for [[Robert McNamara]] I noticed that the [[Wikipedia]] article about McNamara glosses over his responsibility for losing the war. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara#Vietnam_War]. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 15:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Yet more pro-evolution bias on Wikipedia. ==

See [http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117] and http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ . [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

: Thanks for both items above (including McNamara). I'll work these into future additions after more thought and research. Feel free to suggest specific language for a concise point about these to add to the content page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:: For the pro-evolution bias I suggest: "[[Wikipedia]]'s article on [[Haldane's Dillemma]], a serious problem for [[evolution]] downplays the difficulty the problem poses for evolution. Wikipedia refuses to add material explaining or citing work by Walter ReMine which shows how Haldane's Dilemma creates a strong speed limit on evolution.<ref>http://www.arn.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=30329117&an=0&page=0#Post30329117 </ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/wikipedia-suppresses-info-on-haldanes-dilemma/ </ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane%27s_dilemma </ref> " [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:17, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Its unfair to say Wikipedia has a pro-evolution bias. Perhaps more of a pro-scientific method bias? You people are allowed to believe whatever you want, but its simply nuts to insert religious belief into a scientific article. Why can't you get that into your heads? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 11:24, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

: Why can't you get into your head that creationism is just as scientific as evolution and that evolution is just as much a religion as creationism? [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 11:29, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Because they've deluded themselves into thinking that [[creationism|this]] is science. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]]

:::Then suppose you tell us: what exactly ''is'' science? And where is it written that science ''ipso facto'' excludes non-material explanations for events, and rejects them ''a priori'' as untenable?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:35, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:How is evolution scientific? It follows the scientific method. If new evidence came to light tomorrow debunking it, then that would be the truth. The fact is that creationism cannot be considered scientific;There is no way to test its validity and is not falsifiable. In this context, creationism is not a matter of science - it is a belief structure based on irrational tendancies. Therefore it doesn't belong in a scientific article discussing evolution, unless perhaps noting that some people regard it to be scientific, despite the fact that it is not.
:Creationism belongs and deserves its place in a theological/philosophical article, not in a scientific one. Claiming that it does betrays a most fundamental lack of knoweldge in the scientific method or science in general. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 12:43, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::How does evolution follow the scientific method? Where are the experiments showing an evolutionary process in action? New evidence comes to light every year debunking one assumption or another that evolution makes, and yet evolutuion grinds on. You claim that creationism is not falsifiable? Well, whether it is or it isn't (I say that it is, but that's another topic), evolution certainly ''is not'' falsifiable. And if you say that it is, then tell me: what one single fact would convince you that evolution is no longer a tenable proposition?

::As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do. (And if you think that that is not correct, then let's have your credentials.) Evolution violates that method on multiple counts, chief among them multiple wholesale violations of [[Occam's razor]]. Those violations are far too numerous to list here, but for the sake of those who read this debate later, anyone who cares to look for them can find them.

::You still have not given a workable definition of the term ''science''. I infer from your remarks, and those of people like [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]], that by your definition, "science" is that which seeks to explain the origin of the earth, and of life thereon, and all its forms, static and dynamic, ''through material processes only,'' and assumes ''a priori'' that nothing ''im''material exists. In contrast, I say that "science" uses trial and error to find the most likely explanation, be it material ''or immaterial'', for origins or processes. And if we cannot even agree on a definition of science, then we cannot agree on whether
#Wikipedia or any other body is censoring certain findings, or
#whether such censorship is appropriate.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Oh, Doctor, you should have told me I was talking to the King of England! Get over yourself.

I do not have specific credentials, neither am I particularly aware of the intricacies of the scientific world (I am a Historian, not a scientist) but what I do know beyond any shred of a doubt is creationism is not science, and you cannot possibly tell me that it is. The best any creationist can ever come up with is that 'evolution has flaws'. Well so does democracy, so does every single discovery by the human race. You would do well to find me a flawless 'theory'. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 13:14, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:The King of [[England]]? What--did Queen Elizabeth II die, and did her death pass unnoticed by the [[Associated Press]] or [[Reuters]] or even the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]]? And even if she had (which I don't concede), what would any member of the Royal House of Windsor have to do with this discussion?

:Now let me get this straight: you are not trained as a scientist--your calling is that of an historian instead--and yet you "know" that "creationism is not science." Now as to whether I can tell you that creationism is a science--why, of course I can. (You aren't proposing to place me under arrest for so declaring, are you?) Now whether I can make you ''understand'' that creationism is a science, or not, is entirely up to you. Close your mind, or open it, as you wish.

:As to "the best we can do"--well, I don't know what creationists you've been talking to or reading. But evolution is worse than flawed--and by ''evolution'' I mean ''the materialistic [[Theory of evolution|theory]] of life origin and development.'' That theory is a [[null hypothesis]] within the meaning of [[statistics]]. And others who work with these things every day have already calculated that the probability of life originating out of nothing, and developing as it has with no non-material guidance, is vanishingly small. Accordingly, they ''reject the null hypothesis'' and accept the alternative: intervention, by a Non-material Intervenor. And I strongly suspect that you've heard that before; you just don't want to admit it, or face its implications.

:And those implications go ''far'' beyond whether you or I are right or wrong about the origin of earth and of life hereon. They go directly to whether or not all of us are ''held accountable'' for our words and deeds. Accountability, my dear [[User:Graham|Graham]]. That's the part you can't face.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:59, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::Since it seems that you need scientific credentials to join the discussion, maybe I can chip in, after all it says scientists in my job title, although it strikes me as weird that we would try to impress others with our degrees, and not with arguments.
::That said, TerryH, you do confuse the theory of abiogenisis, with the theory of evolution. Abiogeneisis, life coming into existence from a biotic predecessor, is indeed still largly unsolved. The theory of evolution explains how the genepool of a species changes over time, and how species emerge and disappear, and is fairly well understood.
::Second, your reference to the probability of life originating out of nothing, seems to imply that the theory of evolution says that the origin of species is a process guided by a random distribution. The principles of evolution are quite the opposite from a random process, and selection is the reason. It has ''mathematically'' been proven that evolution as principle is some quite different from a random walk. Since you are a scientist, look up genetic and evolutionary algorithms.
::And if you mean "random" in the meaning "without purpose", sure scientist agree, but "without purpose", doesn't let you do your calculation of improbability.
::With respect to abiogenisis, creationism doesn't explain much either. Questions that are unanswered are, where abiogenisis did happen, in a cold or hot environment, on earth, or interstellar, unanswered is which techniques were used to synthesize the first carrier of genetic information, unanswered is what this first carrier of information was, RNA, DNA, proto-RNA, etcetera. All these questions are left unanswered by Creationism, mostly because it is not intended to do so. So, it isn't really a convincing alternative to any of the ideas on abiogenisis that are around. Scientifically speaking. Creationism might give you more comfort. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:01, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:::Your distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is a distinction without a difference. Without abiogenesis, evolution is, frankly, a silly idea. If life had its ''origin'' through creation by an Intelligent Creator, then evolution is unnecessary.

:::Has anyone ever demonstrated the "appearance" of a new species? I defy you to name even ''one'' such example.

:::But I do not depend upon that. Distinguishing abiogenesis from evolution is a total sham. It is an admission that the totally materialistic view of nature is fundamentally flawed and untenable.

:::So you see, I do not merely criticize "evolution," or whatever you currently mean by it. I criticize what [[Charles Darwin]] himself meant by "evolution," what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] meant, and what [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Eugenie Carol Scott]] still mean. I criticize ''materialism'', which states that no causes exist for any events beyond matter. Abiogenesis and evolution (your narrow definition thereof) are both part of evolution (the broader definition), or materialism, if you prefer. The purpose is the same: to declare that there is no [[God]].

:::I also detect that you are trying to accuse [[creationism]] of failing to identify the first cause of life. Well! This is a new angle indeed--for I had the distinct impression that the very concept of "first cause" was untenable, and that no one should ever look for a "first cause." You can't have it both ways.

:::In sum: redefining the term "evolution" is an example of moving the goalpost. I do not accept that. Everyone knows perfectly well that abiogenesis and "change over time" are part and parcel of the same thing.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:58, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::::Abiogenis and evolution are two different things. Evolution takes place all the time, in labs, in people, in hospitals, in the wild. All you need is a self-replicating process, where informations is copied, with a certain chance of error, and a link between the information, and the frequency with which it will be copied. Also known as principle of mutation and selection, but there is more to it. Evolution as principle is quite independent from abiogenisis. Sure, without abiogenisis, there wouldn't be biological evolution, but the principles of evolution would still apply to e.g artificial evolution.
::::Abiogenisis is about how the first living thing came into being, and that is an event of the past. Evolution is at its core a principle. It can be used to explain why the gene-pool changes, but it is more general than that. And Dawkins, Gould, and Darwin were looking what happens if you apply this principle to biology. Even if the first life was created, the principles of evolution would still apply since life is a self-replicating process.
::::It is interesting that you say that you shouldn't look for the first cause. If creationism should not look for the first cause of life, and the circumstances under which it developed, then it doesn't try to answer the questions that biology asks. Fair enough, but this is not biology, nor a replacement. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:41, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::I resent your twisting of my words. I did not say that one should not look for a first cause. Your allies have said that, in this project and out of it.
:::::On the contrary, I assert that ''everything'' had a first cause. And no one has yet shown how life can emerge from non-life. That's because it is not possible.
::::::There are various model for causality, and I am not sure if everything has to have a first cause. But even if, we might just not know what the first cause is. Also, nobody has proven that life cannot emerge from non-life, it just seems that in the last 50 years nobody has proven that it can. Problem is that the creationist story doesn't explain either how life emerged from non-life. It doesn't tell you what was the nature of the first life, in which environment it thrived, etc. Even the failed attempts of the last 50 years to explain abiogenisis made a better attempt to explain this.
:::::::Explain what? The creation account simply says that God brought everything into being, fully formed--and working perfectly. Things didn't go sour until [[Adam and Eve]] ate an [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|apple]].
:::::::The burden of proof rests on the [[Atheism|atheists]] in this case, simply because the atheists need to explain how a thing could have happened against astronomical odds.
::::::::First, your reference of "astronomical odds" shows that think that evolution is random process. Evolution is not a random walk. But this is just a technical mistake that is commonly made; mostly due to confusion what "random" means.
::::::::Secondly, and more important, the burden of proof lie as much with the creationists. If they want explain biology, they better explain it. Simple saying that He just-did-it, makes it a just-so story. It doesn't answer any of the scientific questions, like why different animals have different kind of eyes, why he made so many different kinds of beetles, etcetera. Just because he liked it that way? That is not useful answer. It doesn't explain neither how, where, and why life emerged as we observe it today. [[User:Order|Order]] 01:07, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:How is evolution not a random walk? If it is not random, then it is guided, and if it is not guided, then it is random. I mention that ''only'' to show the weakness in your argument. I ''do not'' accept the notion that one species, consisting of individuals that can mutually breed, arises out of another.
:In any event, [[Statistics|statisticians]] quote odds all the time--to show that a [[null hypothesis]] is untenable, and that one must accept as valid the notion that a given difference is relevant and/or that intervention is taking place.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Evolution is not a random walk, because you have selection. You are just confusing the different meaning of the word "random" again. I'll say it again, go check evolutionary and genetic algorithms, and see for yourself that their behavior is proven to be different from a random walk. One difference is e.g. that solution of and genetic algorithm will converge to a local optimum, while a random walk will not. Look up the proofs. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Has anyone shown conclusively that your genetic algorithms have any basis in fact? Has anyone watched them in action? Have you the slightest scintilla of tangible evidence to support those algorithms? I predict not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Sorry, Terry, to bring this point up, but you brought it yourself into the discussion that you are a scientist. As scientist you should know basic tools such as Google scholar, or other online libraries. It would take you exactly 3 seconds to find the literature on "Genetic Algorithms". The book "Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning", by David Goldberg is a classic, and the first hit on Google Scholar. Do your research before you make such bold claims.[[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

---
:::::But [[Atheism|atheistic]] [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] ''must'' assert that life arose from non-life, because if that did not happen, then they cannot explain how life came to be.
::::::In deed atheists have to explain it to complete that part of the the history of life.
:The above is a signal admission, by you, that atheism cannot offer a complete history of life without explaining how life arose from non-life without [[God|Divine]] or other intervention. Some atheists have tried to fudge the issue by postulating an [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|earlier generation]] of [[Extraterrestrial life|beings from another star or galaxy]] that fired a brace of missiles hither and yon, one of which missiles crashed on earth and gave rise to all life hereon, including us. But that merely shoves the problem back another step--for how did this earlier generation come to be? I now learn that even [[Francis Crick]] had to abandon that theory, perhaps after too many people laughed at him for proposing it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheisms really isn't about abiogensis. And I always thought that religion wasn't about abiogenesis either. Atheism doesn't explain why we are able to ride a bicycle either, and neither does religion. And the much of mechanics of bicycling is also still a mystery. Many scientists are atheists, but that doesn't mean that atheism is science is atheism. As a note aside, Panspermia isn't quite dead, just earlier versions of it. But the whole panspermia discussion is kind of irrelevant. Not quite sure if the core of your religion is to explain unknown scientific facts, but its certainly not the core of atheism. The core of atheism is that doesn't belief in the existence of a deity. Full stop. If you want to have a deity to explain gaps in scientific knowledge away, you are (1) arguing for the "god of the gaps", and (2) actually not explaining anything scientific. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Abiogenesis can only have had to happen in a Godless universe. Therefore, [[atheism]] ''requires'' abiogenesis in order to be tenable. So what happens? Evolutionists ''assume'' abiogenesis ''a priori''. They also assume that all life arose out of one species of virus. That is what the textbooks said or implied when I was in high school and undergraduate college. That is, therefore, what was being ''taught'' in high school and college in my day. And that is what is ''still'' being taught in high school and college, by every account that I have seen.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::*Abiogensis can also happen in a universe with a creator. atheistic evolution believes this.
::::*Atheism didn't came up to explain abiogensis, atheism arose because the the answers that religion gave to all kind of questions were considered disappointing, inconsistent, irrational, or circular. Of course, if you are literate in science it increases the odds that you are no longer satisfied with the religious explanations.
::::You were taught science is high-school, not atheism. New scientific finding can shows that a textbook is incorrect, because school textbooks do not contain internal infallible truth. And at some point these textbooks should be updated, although it might take some time. Sometimes it also easier to teach something that isn't quite right, like Newtonian mechanics, rather than start with the currently best theory of quantum mechanics. But that said, science textbooks can and should be changed if our knowledge changes, sure. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::You have just admitted, by the way, that without abiogenesis, biological evolution is a concept with no warrant in reality. Now you want to talk of "artificial" evolution. Well, "artificial" implies an [[God|Artificer]], does it not?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:09, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::That is why the creationist arguments are flawed. Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen. This is how the creator set up life. Whatever the creating cause might be. Arguing in contrast that the principle is impossible is a folly, since on principle it works. This is why theistic evolutionist and also IDers do not reject evolution, but say say that evolution is insufficient to explain everything. And one of the things that is currently unexplained is abiogenesis. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:18, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Have I got this straight? Even if [[God]] exists, He is Unnecessary? Remember that we do not even agree on what the word ''evolution'' connotes--because men like you insist on moving the goalpost every time men like us get close.
::::::::No, that is not what I said. I said even if he exists, and even if had made the first life, evolution will still happen. Remember, evolution is a principle that applies to certain self-replicating processes, and life is one of those. Life could have been differently, such that a creator would have to manufacture each and any new living being from scratch, but it happens to be the case that life self-replicates. I can't help it. I am not moving the goal post, the problem is that you don't seem to know what evolution entails a principle, and that abiogenisis is a singular event in the past. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:The [[Hell|aitch-eeh-double-hockey-stick]], that's not what you said. In any event, your continued assertion, without proof, that evolution is "a principle," evades the issue of ''why'' people tout evolution so loudly, and suppress creation. And to the extent that species change, they change only for the worse, not better. The [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]] tells how. The [[Bible]] tells why--because [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] has come into the world. Therefore, evolution, by the new and watered-down definition you now stand by, is a consequence of ''sin''.
::*It is really almost exactly what I said. I said first "Since even if there is a creator, evolution would still happen", and later "even if he exists, (...) evolution will still happen".
:::*Unless you can show me one definition of the word ''evolution'' upon which ''all'' scientists, or even all ''proponents'' of the concept "evolution," agree, your sentence above is operationally meaningless.
::::Biological evolution is the change in the genepool from one generation to the other due to a stochastic process that involves mutation and selection. All scientists agree on that. And in computer science an mathematics you assume additionally that you have a self-replicated process, and that the genetic influence is linked to the frequency with which it appears in the next generation. And that definition has been fairly stable since the early 70s as well. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::And how did the process begin? What started it? In fact, you haven't even made a showing about a self-replicating process.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::* Anyway. If you want proof that evolution a principle that applies also outside of biology , check out work on evolutionary and genetic algorithms. I mentioned this before.
::* The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply, because life is not a closed system.
:::* I've heard that canard before. Better minds than either of us have already disproved it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::: Saying that you've heard it before doesn't prove that it not true. The second law really applies to closed systems. Or do you want to argue that life is a closed system? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::: That doesn't matter. You cannot divorce life from the rest of the universe. The ''universe'' is not merely closed; it is ''isolated''. Abiogenesis would have been ''impossible'' under such a system. Life is too ordered, and too well-informed, for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
::* To observe that the laws of evolution also apply outside of biology isn't watering down; it makes it stronger, because its more general. And sin doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions used to define evolution.
:::* Of course sin does not appear in any of the (ever-changing) definitions of evolution. Because they who ''write'' (and rewrite) the definitions reject the very concept of sin. Or rather, they define sin differently: sin, to them, is anything that stands in their way.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::No, there were also people, Christians, who do accept notion of sin, who were also writing scientific definitions. Problem is that even they didn't have a use "sin" in their scientific definitions. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::That's because, having accepted the notion of evolution as Darwin taught it and men like [[Ernst Haeckel]] put it forward, they had stood away from their faith. Just because a man ''calls'' himself a Christian does not mean that he well and truly ''is'' one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
:::::::I confidently predict that you will never, never explain abiogenesis. And I repeat: without it, your atheistic system falls to the ground.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:59, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I can confidently predict that I will never explain abiogensis either. I am a computer scientist. And I can also confidently predict that I will never prove that evolution works as a mathematical principle. That has already been done in the last century. No need to do it all over again. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:58, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:I do not accept that claim.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::You don't need to accept that claim, you can look up the proof. And it has been proven whether you like it or not. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::It has not, because as I said above, no one has shown that these "algorithms" work in the wild.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Since its all mathematics it applies to all self-replicating processes. If you want to show that it doesn't work in the wild, you have to show that there are active processes preventing it from happening. I haven't seen any argument by you that goes into this direction. You always argument that evolution is a random walk, and that is false. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::Excuse me, but you have not even shown anything about a self-replicating process. You have not defined that term, and this is the first that I have heard about any of this. And after learning about the fraud that [[Ernst Haeckel]] committed with his fudged embryo drawings, I am not going to accept ''anything'' at face value from an evolutionist without hard and fast corroboration. You're going to have to lay out your entire case, and perhaps the best place to do that is in an Essay.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---
::::::::But I wonder why atheism should fall over if science cannot explain abiogenesis. It is not a cornerstone of atheism. Atheism isn't about biology, even if Dawkins is a biologist. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:28, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
:Merely because, without abiogenesis, atheism cannot answer the question, "If there is no [[God]], then where did we come from?"--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:01, 27 September 2007 (EDT)
::Atheism isn't about abiogensis, so they probably don't care much. Its up to science to find an explanation if they can. And the explanation that God did it, isn't much of an explanation either. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:57, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::You admit, then, that [[atheism]] and materialistic "scientism" are closely allied. Atheism turns to what they call science--but which, again, I call materialistic scient''ism''--to explain that without which atheism would fail. It has been doing that ever since Darwin. Without Darwin, there would have been no [[Karl Marx|Marx]]--he who called religion "the [[Opium|opiate]] of the people."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:48, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
::::* There is an overlap in people between materialistic science and atheism. Sure, and the the more you know about science, the more likely is you reject religious explanations as insufficient. But hey are still different. As pointed out on this site, there are religious scientists, and I can add that there are atheists that aren't scientists.
::::* Marx and Darwin were contemporaries, Marx started writing 20 years before Darwin published his Origins. And that you don't like Marx is your problem; Marx was an atheists, but few atheists are Marx.
::::* And also scientism has to live with the fact that much in not explained, and it freely admits that it doesn't know everything. It is just that in scientism expects that humans will eventually figure everything out. I personally am skeptical about that hope. And as said before neither religion nor atheism came about to explain abiogensis. Jesus didn't came to earth to explain mitochondrial DNA. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:24, 29 September 2007 (EDT)
:::::*At least you admit that scientism confidently expects mankind to solve all the riddles. You have good reason to be skeptical. I'll save you the trouble with hoping: they'll never figure out how anything came about out of nothing, without Intelligent Help. How can the atheists hope to figure out that which could only have come about through the Intervention of [[God|Him]] Whom they deny?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:27, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
---

My crack at the King of England was implied at your pompous air: ''As a man having a medical degree, I can and do claim, with no small justice, that I know far more about the scientific method than you do.''

Why don't we just get you a crown and get it over with?

Anyway, back to the point. Just because something cannot be readily explained right now (IE, the Big Bang, where did it come from?) doesn't mean there isn't a logical explanation for it. This is similar to the belief that the sun orbits the earth - there was no other logical explanation for it. When evidence emerged that this wasn't so, people were repressed by the forces of superstition (Religion)

The one last thing which science cannot adequately explain and which allows religion its last dying breath is that of the Big Bang. Human beings cannot get our heads around the concept of infinity... Its a natural reaction. You cannot say to me that there isn't a big teapot orbiting Jupiter. Therefore is it wise to say there is in fact a big teapot orbiting Jupiter? Is it wise to make this baseless claim, simply on my perilously unbacked claim that there is, in fact, a teapot orbiting Jupiter? perhaps someday when we advance the notion of space exploration we can then definately prove whether there is a teabag in Jupiter once and for all. But just because we cannot explain there isn't a teabag orbiting Jupiter right now, doesn't mean we should believe that there is a teabag orbiting Jupiter.

P.S- Whats all that rubbish about accountability about? We're just having a discussion. Chill. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 15:10, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:First of all, if anyone is being pompous, you are. You continue to bandy the phrase ''scientific method'' as if it were inherently superior to religion. And--pardon me, but I thought you knew what you were talking about, until you admitted that you are not even trained as a scientist. I, on the other hand, have been so trained. And in that sense, I know more about the scientific method than you can possibly know.

:And second--you bring up the Big Bang as though ''that'' were a proved fact, too. Not only is it ''not'' proved, but ''it could not have happened'' as commonly described. Something ''did'' happen, six thousand years or so ago (by clocks and calendars on earth, that is)--but what that something was, did not conform to conventional descriptions of the Big Bang in any way, shape or form. So don't ask me to explain that which did not happen and could not have happened.

:Finally, all this is beside the point. I have consistently asked you to provide a definition of the word ''science'' that allows you to claim that [[God]] either does not and did not exist, or else is Superfluous. You have persisted in, as far as I can tell, assuming the consequent--or rather what you ''hope'' is the consequent.

:PS: The accountability I speak of is for all your actions, on-line and off-. I am accountable, too. So I recognized that [[Jesus Christ|Someone]] settled that account about two thousand years ago. Of course, part of recognizing anyone for settling your account is realizing that you ''have'' an account to settle...--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

:TerryH, Where did I say the Big Bang is a proven fact? I'm simply throwing idea's here... I don't know all the answers but maybe if we throw around enough we questions we might get an answer, together. The point of my argument was that just because we do not have a valid explanation for say, the Big Bang, doesn't mean that it isn't entirely possible. Kind of reminds me of a man called Gallileo all those years ago who said some crazy things...

By the way, I've calmed down. I had a cigarette. If you've any more questions just ask, and chill! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 16:22, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

::You ''cited'' the Big Bang as ''the'' evidence that disproved creation. That could be true ''only'' if the Big Bang were a proved fact. Since it isn't, it can't disprove creation.

::Neither does Galileo's experience invalidate creation. The full treatment of the Galileo affair is out-of-scope here. What is ''in'' scope is whether evolution, and all the things that evolution depends upon, are proved facts, or mere conjectures.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:49, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

== Wrap up ==
Terry, this discussion has to many loose end to be meaningful. Also we are just repeating part of the entire evolution/atheism debate all over again. If we want to do that we should go to the appropriate articles.

My summary of where we stand right now is
* You believe that atheism has to explain everything, otherwise it falters. I disagree, and say that atheism can live alright with gaps in knowledge. Everybody has to live with the fact that there are more things that we don't know than things that we do know. Regardless of faith or the absence thereof.
* You think that the only alternative explanation of unknowns is "God". You disagree with my response that "God" isn't a good answer to the unsolved scientific questions.
I hope we can agree to disagree on this. Or did I forget something? [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== "No Entry For 'Liberal' " ==

Apparently an example of bias on Wiki is that it has no entry for "liberal" (it redirects to "liberalism"). One would note that the non-existent article on "conservative" redirects to "conservatism". It's common practice on Wikipedia to point directly to a philosophy rather than to its practitioners to avoid clutter. The liberal page, if it existed, would merely read as "one who practices the philosophy of liberalism. (See Liberalism)".

Why is this bias?[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*It would not be a [[deceit]] if that is what they did. But they don't, do they? And how can you speak for one million editors and say that is how it would be? Or stay, for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:33, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

::I'm also confused. Conservative, communist, fascist, libertarian, feminist, etc... all redirect to their philosophies, so how can it be said that this shows bias on Wikipedia's part? Besides, it looks like Wikipedia has actually changed it now and appears to include various definitions of liberal, including the articles Social Liberalism and Modern American Liberalism. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 15:30, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::: The term is "[[liberal]]". [[Wikipedia]] can try all it wants to redefine it, but [[Wikipedia]] is only discrediting itself. And in Wikipedia's silly new terminology, does it admit that [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and censorship of [[prayer]] in the classroom? I doubt it. You can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:40, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::: Liberal has a lot of different meanings Aschlafly, depending on the time period and country of origin. Wikipedia isn't creating it's own list of words out of thin air. Go visit Wikipedia, type in liberal, and see the terms for yourself. While you're at it, go to the article Modern American Liberalism, which is on the liberal disam. page, and it lists many of the views of the liberals that you are thinking of. The article is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_American_Liberalism here]. [[User:Jelx|Jelx]] 21:03, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

::::: The [[Wikipedia]] entry you reference is a lie. It conceals how [[liberals]] support taxpayer-funded abortion and censorship of [[prayer]] in [[school]], for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:08, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Liberals are not united in their beliefs. The Wikipedia article on liberalism mentions that
"liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances." How clear can you get? They're not being biased. You may wish that the article included more criticism toward liberals, and no doubt liberals would like the article on "Conservatism" to be more negative, but WIkipedia's internal processes smooth out the edges of personal opinion to keep both articles factual.

I know many liberals and while a portion support "taxpayer-funded abortion" and censorship of prayers, many do not (a small minority of my liberal friends would support prayer censorship of any religion). It is unbiased to report that liberals philosophy "generally supports" something. It would be equally unfair to attempt to attempt to portray conservatives as gun nuts or fascists because most are not. As a libertarian conservative, I would hate to be lumped in with the fringe weirdos within my philosophy.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 23:50, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D." ==

Here is Wikipedia's policy:

"Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it)."

Much of the world has been using the so-called "Common Era" indicator for some time. This is the same reason that Wikipedia occasionally allows British spellings (i.e. colour or fibre) and use of the metric system in articles - hardly evidence of bias. A ''restriction'' of the usage of C.E. or B.C.E., on the other hand, would be Western-centric and biased.[[User:Archibald|Archibald]] 19:27, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

*Archibald, your posting borders on the pedantic! How many articles, using AD or BC actually remain that way? Editors are constantly changing to the secular-progressive CE. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:35, 27 September 2007 (EDT)

== New #1 - WP's CP entry ==

Maybe add a line or two of how several sysops (Ed Poor, Karajou (editing as an anonymous IP), Mr. Martinez were the ones I spotted on the fly) edited the article and often tried to add their own bias to it, but apparently never, ever touched that claim you mentioned (which has been in the article since March or April, btw.)? (I didn't check each and every edit in the long edit history, but if my claim about the no-touching is wrong, I'll be happy to concede the point as soon as somebody shows me the diff), meaning that they apparently saw nothing wrong with it.

And sourcing aside, how can you say that CP is not supportive of YEC when you support sysops like Conservative and others, who openly push YEC in key articles, making it look like the most likely alternative while merrily bashing "evolutionism" and related old-earth concepts? CP seems to go to great lengths to make all issues connected to an old Earth look like some wild theory with no proof at all. If you wish to prove me wrong, be my guest. This is just my impression after a good while of lurking and posting. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:46, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

: Your first paragraph, even if true, would not be a defense for [[Wikipedia]], so it is irrelevant and I'll ignore it.

: Your second paragraph fails to address the essence of [[Wikipedia]]'s defamation as quoted in point 1: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project '''with the stated purpose''' of creating an encyclopedia ... supportive of ... Young Earth creationism."

: It's not just that Wikipedia's statement is false. It is defamatory as it attempts to smear [[Conservapedia]] with a falsehood in front of [[Wikipedia]]'s [[liberal]] audience. You are right that [[Wikipedia]] has featured that defamation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::The editing participation is important because you are portraying something as bias even though your sysops implicitly seemed to endorse it. You know how they say: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - and your "good men" seemed to do nothing. As such, it is not so much me defending WP, but rather me pointing out that your most recent addition seems to be built on sand.
::And what is Conservapedia's "stated purpose" then? I was not able to find anything that clearly defines its goals, at least not something that seems to be compatible with what I observe here (and that is pro-YEC and anti-atheism that goes well beyond the point of being "neutral to the facts").
::Furthermore, looking at the site certainly does give the impression that CP supports YEC, regardless of what you state. If anything, at least think about that one.
::However, I will drop the issue. Giving things a brief look, nobody ever managed to make you remove just one point from the list (again, if there are examples that prove me wrong, I'll be more than happy to admit my mistake). So I'm happy enough with the fact that you replied and the hope that you will maybe think about the perceived image of the site. You can have the last word if you please, I'll be off editing. :) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:20, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Bow out if you like, but [[Wikipedia]]'s smear of Conservapedia is false and defamatory, and you seem unwilling to admit it. You defend Wikipedia's claim that Conservapedia has a certain "stated purpose," but then complain that you can't find any stated purpose at all. Wikipedia and its many lies and smears are not making the world a better place. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:29, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::::My hopefully last comment in this section to reply to the words you put into my mouth. Never did I defend WP or stated that this is indeed CP's stated purpose. You also flat-out ignore any point I made that is not directly connected to the issue you focus on, which is incredibly sad.
::::I am willing to agree with you that YEC is not CP's stated purpose. However, you seem to be unable or unwilling to show me CP's stated purpose. Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of your sysops speak much louder than your claims of what CP does or does not support. You can look away if that makes you feel better, but it doesn't change the impression visitors get. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 18:37, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::: Jenkins, I didn't put any words in your mouth. And I don't have to provide a "stated purpose." [[Wikipedia]] lies about [[Conservapedia]], and after a numerous postings here you still won't admit it. I can assure you that intelligent visitors here are quite happy with what they find, which is why we're growing every day. If you prefer Wikipedia's lies, suit yourself. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

All Things Considered

2007-09-27T23:28:52Z

Archibald:

{{uncited}}
'''''All Things Considered''''', is a popular [[National Public Radio]] talk show that began in 1971. It was one of NPR`s original shows. ''All Things Considered'' airs every weekday for two hours on National Public Radio, and covers a variety of topics from [[science]] to [[politics]]. The show is hosted by [[Michele Norris]], [[Robert Siegal]], and [[Melissa Block]], and takes a [[leftist]] point of view. It is currently the third most popular radio program in the United States, after the Rush Limbaugh show and Morning Edition.

[[Cokie Roberts]], formerly of ''All Things Considered'', reported on the program that [[Ronald Reagan]] had made a [[gaffe]] which would destroy his hopes to win the presidency in 1980 after Reagan referred to the [[Vietnam War]] as "a noble cause."

[[Nina Totenberg]] of ''All Things Considered'' reported the substance of an illegal leak on the program when information from Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]]'s security clearance in violation of Senate Rules were passed to her by members of [[Senator Paul Simon]]'s staff, intending to defame Justice Thomas.

[[Category: Media]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-27T23:27:16Z

Archibald: /* "No Entry For 'Liberal' " */

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-27T23:27:01Z

Archibald: "Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D."

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-09-27T23:21:41Z

Archibald: "No Entry For 'Liberal' "

Sean Hannity

2007-09-27T23:15:59Z

Archibald:

[[Image:SHannity.jpg|right|thumb|230px]]
'''Sean Patrick Hannity''' (born December 30, 1961) is a [[conservative]] talk show host and [[television]] co-host of [[Fox News]] ''Hannity and Colmes'' show. The youngest of four children, Hannity was born in [[New York City]] to Irish immigrants. He dropped out of college to embark on [[radio]] career, and in 1988 was at a small-town station of WVNN in Huntsville, Alabama. He later broke into a Top 10 market in Atlanta at 640 AM WGST. His national recognition came as an occasional substitute host of the #1 radio show of all-time - The [[Rush Limbaugh]] Show. Allegedly on his first guest show, he dropped the golden EIB microphone because of a case of high nerves. The attention gained from substitute-hosting the show paved his way to national syndication.

==Television==
Sean Hannity was asked to join the newly formed FOX News Channel (FNC) in September 1996<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref>.
He accepted the offer and became co-host with Alan Colmes of ''Hannity and Colmes,'' a prime time one-hour debate driven talk show focusing on the controversial issues and newsmakers of the day. <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1242,00.html</ref> Today ''Hannity and Colmes'' ranks among the leading cable TV news show (just behind ''Larry King Live'' and the ''O'Reilly Factor''). Critics contend that the conservative Hannity is given more time to talk than the liberal Colmes.

==Controversy==

Hannity angered traditional [[Catholics]] with his antagonistic treatment of Father Thomas Euteneuer on March 9th, during which Hannity criticized Fr. Euteneuer for prominent sex scandals in the Catholic Church.<ref>http://thebadguy.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/video-of-the-hannity-euteneuer-squabble</ref> After heated remarks by Hannity during the interview, he finally asked the priest, "Wait, would you deny me Communion?" To which Fr. Euteneuer responded, "I would."<ref>http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/070320</ref>

==Books==

Hannity's books use patriotic rhetoric as a main theme. His first book, in 2002, was entitled ''"Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism"''. The book remained on the New York Times best selling list for 17 weeks.<ref>http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/24930/Sean_Hannity/index.aspx</ref>
In 2004 he wrote ''Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism''. In this book he "reveals how the disgraceful history of appeasement has reached forward from the days of [[Neville Chamberlain]] and [[Jimmy Carter]] to corrupt the unrepentant leftists of the modern [[Democratic Party]] from [[Howard Dean]] and [[John Kerry]] to [[Bill Clinton|Bill]] and [[Hillary Clinton]]."

==Radio==

Hannity reaches approximately 12.5 million radio listeners each day, second only behind Rush Limbaugh.<ref>Newsweek, April 27th, 2007 issue, Pg. 29</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External Links==
[http://www.hannity.com/ Sean Hannity's Official Website]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hannity, Sean}}
[[Category:Broadcasters]]