Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Constantine

2007-06-23T22:09:55Z

Ben:

{{Rome}}'''Constantine''' was a [[Rome|Roman]] [[Emperor]] famous for being the first Christian Emperor of Rome, and increasing the legalizing of [[Christianity]]. He lived AD February 27, 272 - May 22, 337.

Although he is often held up by the [[Church]] as the ideal religious [[King]], ruling at the will of the just [[God]], Constantine's character is in fact much more complicated. Constantine is well-known to have considered many different religions, resorting to Christianity only in the run-up to his climactic victory at the [[Battle of the Milvian Bridge]] in 312 AD, after which Constantine became the sole "[[Augustus]]" - in [[Diocletian]]'s tetrarchy system - of Rome (the west). [[Lucinius]] was still Augustus of the east. At this battle, Constantine is said to have seen in the sky the [[Chi Ro]], an early Christian symbol, which the [[Latin]] words "IN HOC SIGNO VINCES," or, "under this sign shall you conquer." Constantine allegedly then ordered all of his troops to paint the Chi Ro on their shields. He won a crushing victory ending his civil war with Maxentius when Maxentius drowned trying to escape. He attributed his victory to Christianity.

In the next year Constantine put forth the [[Edit of Milan]] guaranteeing religious freedom to Christians after almost 300 years of persecution. Constantine was engaged in a smoldering conflict with Lucinius, still Augustus of the east starting in 314. Tensions became worse when Lucinius again started persecuting Christians in 320 and led to all out civil war in 324, which ended with Lucinius' surrender and execution. Constantine was then sole ruler of the Roman empire, and remained so until his death. [[Constantinople]] was named after him, a city he spent many years in building to be the new Capital in the East.

After years of never being able to all meet together openly, Constantine encouraged Christian leaders from all over the Empire to come together and draw up common understandings of their beliefs. With his victory over Lucinius and in control of the whole empire, Constantine brought together the first [[Council of Nicaea]] in 325 A.D.

It is worth noting that much of Constantine's earlier religiosity remains in the archaeological record. For example, Roman coins from the time period of Constantine I can be found, emblazoned with the legend,

"IMP CONSTANT AUG, SOL INV.," expanded as, "Imperator Constantine Augustus, to Sol Invictus," and translated as, "Commander Constantine, Augustus, dedicated to the God of the Unconquered Sun."

[[category:Roman emperors]]

Theocracy

2007-06-23T22:08:54Z

Ben:

'''Theocracy''' is a form of government ruled by divine means or by leaders considered to be divinely guided. [[Israel]] was a theocracy before King Saul. The Islamic Republic of [[Iran]] is a modern-day theocracy, as many commentators believe that the real power in its government lies not in democratically-elected leaders like [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] but in clerics within the government since Iranian law requires Presidential candidates to be approved by the [[Guardian Council]] <ref>
Access Denied: Iran’s Exclusionary Elections Human Rights Watch [http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iran0605/]</ref> and some Iranian laws on homosexuality and adultery come from the Sharia <ref>Netherlands, Sweden: Bar Deportations to Torture in Iran
- Officials Must Not Return Gay and Lesbian Asylum Seekers to Iran Human Rights Watch [http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/06/sweden14361.htm]</ref>. The [[Vatican]] is a formal Christian theocracy, with the [[Pope]] as head of both church and state.

Only two democracies reserve places in their legislature specifically for representatives of the state religion, these are the aforementioned Islamic Republic of Iran and the [[United Kingdom]] where Bishops of the [[Church of England]] sit in the upper chamber, the [[House of Lords]] under the designation of Lords Spiritual, although these positions are quite small and ceremonious.

Theocracy may also describe any government which seeks to impose religious principles or law, such as the [[Sharia]], or the Hindu laws of [[Manu Smriti]] <ref>The laws of Manu George Buhler, translated by [http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu.htm]</ref> on its population, even if the government is formally [[secular]].

One well known example of such a state is Saudi Arabia who's legal system is based on the Sharia law, Saudi Arabia also has a [[religious police]] <ref>Saudi Arabia - The Legal System U.S. Library Of Congress [http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/51.htm]</ref>

In Israel, civil cases under the [[Halakhah]] (traditional Jewish law based on the Tohrah) are allowed.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Religion]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:BBC

2007-03-28T12:36:37Z

Ben: /* A British Wikipedian says */

I live in the UK. I am an evangelical Christian.

I heard a radio article this morning on BBC radio about conservapedia as an alternative to wikipedia. Although the BBC is often liberal, I felt the item gave Conservapedia a fair hearing. Unfortunately, I was rather disappointed by some of your complaints against Wikipedia - direct from your representative's mouth. One of the main concerns seemed to be that Wikipedia use non-US English, and that it was anti-american in its editorial stance.

I have to be honest. As a non-American, I found the inference that US English was the higher form of our shared language to be somewhat offensive, and small minded. If Wikipedia choses to use standard English, how is that any more or less morally acceptable than a wiki that uses American English? I don't believe that American is any more God's special country than the UK, France, or even Nigeria could claim to be? Where does this superiority complex come from?

I am concerned that Conservapedia has missed the point that is is part of the www - WORLD wide web, not the American web. As a Christian, I welcome an alternative viewpoint to Wikipedia. I do not, however, relish the idea that Christian = proAmerican and that the only audience you are serving is American. I ask that you consider your worldwide audience/potential contributors. I would add, I'm not anti American - I've been to your country many times and have many friends there. I'm just not American.

(Name withheld)

:'''A Conservapedia editor responds:'''

:Dear Sir,

:Thank you for your feedback. We have many friends in England also, and I once had the pleasure of being involved in litigation with your barristers across the pond. Many Americans older than I fondly recall coming to your aid in World War II when things were looking quite bleak in London.

:Certainly no offen'''s'''e is intended by preferring the American spelling of words here on Conservapedia. The American spelling is typically more economical in its use of letters, and more people prefer the American spelling to the old British spelling.

:I do wonder why you refer to your spelling as "standard English." Could you join us on Conservapedia and explain that for us?

:Cheers, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::'''A Conservapedia user responds:'''

::I think that the editor's reply to our British friend is an excellent one, and really demonstrates what Conservapedia is all about, particularly the reference to World War II. The point concerning the more economical approach to spelling embodied by American English is consistent with the philosophy behind the shorter and more concise articles on Conservapedia (when contrasted with other, more verbose online encyclopedias), an approach to language which one of our British friend's very own countrymen, Mr. George Orwell, would have found familiar.

::Cheerio, --[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 00:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::: Thanks, I really appreciated your comments above!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::You are most welcome!--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== A British Wikipedian says ==

Hello there. I couldn't help noticing that you did not answer a single thing of that persons queries (except your spelling one, although that does not explain why its non-use makes Wikipedia anti-American). I myself am not anti-American, but I do not see how your arguments make sense.

For example- In your rules you state you are neutral in facts, for example you will call a terrorist group a terrorist group, yet a terrorist group is a point of view, not a fact. In your definition you state it as the use of violence or intimidation to pursue political objectives. In that case, any army in the World is a terrorist organisation.

: Perhaps our definition should be improved. But we're not going to use political correct terminology to epitomize terrorism. Call it what it really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 2- Your articles are many times more biased than wikipedia. One of my edits was removed within minutes for being "liberal censorship of conservative facts", that is stating science. A large collection of users with more liberal, international views may become biased, but a small group who make a single demographic faction with pre-set ideas and relying on the consensus of a few individuals really does fulfil the meaning of the word "Wikiality" (see wikipedia on the subject). The internet is not the American Wide web.

: Not sure what your point is here. No one seriously disputes that Wikipedia is more liberal than the American public. Jimmy Wales has even admitted this, though of course he won't say how much more liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Point 3- Many of your articles lack reliable sources or do not mention facts. For example, in Evolution it states that there are no transitional fossils. Perhaps you have not heard of "Archaeopteryx" or "Cynodont". One article linked to a site which didn't exist, while another cited Conservapedia! Wikipedia may have its flaws but their rule clearly disallows that from happening!

: I have heard of Archaeopteryx and I believe my comments about it were edited out. What Wikipedia rule are you citing? Regardless, stay tuned and watch Conservapedia grow.

Oh, and finally, I do not see how WW2 is connected to the conversation, nor why it was commented as being a particularly relevant point when it was the most irrelevant point on the page, especially as the Battle of Britain was over. I fully appreciate the sacrifice of our American friends in their fight against fascism and for the freedom of Europe, but "come to our aid when things were looking bleak". Perhaps you should touch up on your history.

: Thank you, but I've studied this period of history thoroughly. Let's not understate what America did for Britain in WWII, OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I remind you that I'm not anti-American or anti-Christian, but I see your response and most of your site to be fundamentally lacking of any substance whatsoever, incredibly biased and hypocritical, extremely prejudice against Liberals and full of blackwhite remarks (see "Newspeak" from 1984). I agree with my fellow countryman's remarks, and if anything, you could argue that I'm anti-you. I hope we can both see your site succeed (the Internet has very few generally new things nowadays) and my constructive criticism has been helpful. If you have read this far, my congratulations at reading to the end rather than deleting this “liberal propaganda”

: You are obviously liberal in your perspective. I don't expect all liberals to like this site. But more open-minded ones will.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Signing out for undoubtedly the last time, your atheist friend, --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

PS. Perhaps you do not know what the definition for “Liberal” is. The dictionary defines it as…

1). Less strict, Tolerant
2). Free from prejudice or bigotry
3). Characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts
4). Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
“Naturally these are all bad things, although… “

: Those are lovely euphemisms that have virtually no basis in political reality. We define [[liberal]] as it really is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::Careful, Andy! Your bias is showing! But then again, you have a point. Racial profiling, torture, wiretapping, et al, are all pretty tolerant.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Please enlighten me by defining liberal "as it really is". Further more, you still didn't answer point 2. You mentioned that Wikipedia is more liberal which, although true, is never disputed on this page. Perhaps you misunderstood? And finally, then you say "which rule is this?", I mean this rule on the page "Wikipedia: Citing sources":

"Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources."

User talk:Ben

2007-03-28T12:31:26Z

Ben:

Ben, this is a warning of potential blocking of your account based on your recent edit: this is not Wikipedia. Liberal censorship of supported, conservative facts is not allowed here. That is allowed on Wikipedia, but not here.

Shape up Ben - you should know we only support conservative censorship of supported, liberal facts. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you saying that these facts that don't support your view are liberal, just because they don't agree with your views. By ommitting these facts, this is itself a form of censorship. This site is being continually frustating and incredibly biased. Are you saying that by being neutral, I'm breaking the rules?

If you want to block me, so be it. I openly state that I am a wikipedia editor and an agnostic Britain. But I'm not here to vandalize your website. I'm merely trying to improve your site. If you wish to ban me for this, then that is a clear form of prejudice. --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Check the history of [[Great Flood]], son - I never touched it. Next time you want to yell at somebody, make sure you've got the right target. I expect an apology. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 16:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Flood

2007-03-28T12:30:05Z

Ben:

[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
Cultures around the world record a world-destroying '''flood''' in their oral or written histories. Today 60% of Americans accept as true the Biblical account of the Great Flood.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref>

== The Flood accounts ==

The best known of the flood accounts are, the two intermeshed versions found in the book of [[Genesis]], and the version found in the [[Gilgamish Epic]]. Both are written accounts.
The Genesis account is the most detailed of any of the accounts, and the one against which others are usually compared.
It has also been studied the most, with a number of terms used in reference to it, including the '''Flood''', '''Noah's Flood''', the '''Deluge''', the '''Great Flood''', and the '''Noahic flood'''.
The terms ''pre-diluvian'' and ''post-diluvian'' are used to refer to the times before and after the flood respectively.

A table comparing specific details in a number of different flood accounts can be found [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 here].

== The Genesis account ==

The Genesis account is the most detailed account.
In it, God warned Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a flood, because of the wickedness of mankind. Noah was to build an ark and take on it his family and representatives of all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures. The ark was to be 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref> (approximately 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet high), have three decks, and rooms.

God brought the animals and birds to Noah, and there were, per Gen 7:2 two of the "[[unclean (animals)|unclean]]" animals and seven (or seven pairs) of the "[[clean (animals)|clean]]", and per Gen 6:19-20 "two of every sort".

After Noah and his family and all the creatures were on board, God shut the door of the ark.
The flood was brought on by the eruption of subterranean water ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"), and rain.
The rain lasted nearly six weeks (40 days and nights).
The flood waters apparently continued to rise for 150 days, but it was just over a year before the waters had receded enough for the occupants of the ark to leave.

The ark is recorded as having come to rest on the mountains of Ararat, taken by many today to be the existing mountains of that name.
God put a rainbow in the clouds, and said that it was to be a reminder that he would never again destroy the world in a flood. (Genesis does not say that this was the first ever rainbow.)
He also told Noah that it was now okay to eat meat.

== The Gilgamish Epic account ==

The council of the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god who had made man, Ea, to build a boat to take all living being. The length, width, and height were each 120 cubits (about 180 feet). It had seven stories.

The gods got frightened by the flood and retreated to heaven where they cowered and wept.
The flood lasted six days and seven nights, and was accompanied by wind and storm.
Utnapishtim send out a dove followed by a swallow, but both returned, unable to find land. He then sent a raven, which didn't return.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati comments on the Gilgamish Epic:
:It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. ... For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.<ref Name="JS_GE" />

== Other ancient references ==

The Assyrian King [[Ashurbanipal]], who lived in the seventh century B.C., recorded, "I have read intricate tablets inscribed with obscure Sumerian or Akkadian...inscriptions on stone from before the Flood."<ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1032092 Ashurbanipal]</ref>

== Common Themes for Flood Accounts ==

=== Cause ===

Many of the accounts say that the flood was caused by God or some equivalent being.
In Genesis, it was Yahweh<ref>Genesis 6:3</ref>.
In the Gilgamish Epic, it was the council of the gods <ref Name="JS_GE">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic] by Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'', vol. 28 No. 4 pp.12-17</ref>.
In the Bundaba (Australian aboriginal) flood story, it was Ngowungu, the Great Father. <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1468 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories], ''Creation'' Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-9.</ref>
The Greeks recorded it as being [[Zeus]].<ref name="Greek">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek Greek], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>

=== Purpose ===

When the cause of the flood is attributed to a god, the reason is frequently said to be for [[mankind]]'s wickedness.
Genesis adds that "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time".<ref>Genesis 6:5 (NIV)</ref>
The Miao account from China says, in verse, "These did not God's will nor returned His affection. / But fought with each other defying the Godhead. / Their leaders shook fists in the face of the Mighty."<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341 Genesis According to the Miao People], by Edgar A. Truax, ''Impact'', April 1991</ref>
A Navajo account says that it was because of "their sins of adultery and constant quarreling". <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Navajo Navajo (Four Corners area)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak</ref>

=== What saved the people ===

People were generally saved either by floating out the flood, or fleeing to the top of a mountain. In the former case, the vessel took a variety of forms.
A Hopi Indian story has them surviving in the hollow stems of giant reeds<ref name="Hopi">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hopi Hopi], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
The Greek story has them surviving in a chest. <Ref name="Greek" />
In Genesis, Noah was instructed by God to build an ark to dimensions and other specifications included in the account.

=== Who was saved? ===

The survivors were often a single family.
An Australian aboriginal account has Ngadgja, the Supreme One, telling Gajara to take his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives.<ref name="Wunambal">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1467 Aboriginal Flood Legend], by Howard Coates, ''Creation'' Vol. 4 No.3, pp.9-12</ref>
The Masai account from East Africa has Tumbainot taking his two wives, his six sons, and their wives.<ref name="Masai">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Masai Masai (East Africa)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
A Hawaiian story has Nuu taking his wife and three sons. <ref name="Hawaii">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hawaii Hawaii], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
Noah took his wife, his three sons, and their wives.<ref>Genesis 7:13</ref>

=== Birds sent out ===

Genesis describes Noah sending out birds to see if there was yet dry land.<ref>Genesis 8:6-12</ref>
Initially this was unsuccessful, but a subsequent attempt was successful when a dove didn't return. In the Hopi account also, they unsuccessfully sent out birds to find land.<ref name="Hopi" />
An Australian aboriginal account has a cuckoo not returning because it found land.<ref name="Wunambal" />
The Masai account has Tumbainot sending out a dove, which returned because it had no place to rest.<ref name="Masai" />

=== A rainbow ===

The Masai account has four rainbows signifying that God's wrath was over.<ref name="Masai" />
A Hawaiian account has the god Kane leaving a rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness.<ref name="Hawaii" />
From an Australian aboriginal story comes this account:
:Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back. The rainbow lies bent across the sky; he ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, ‘There will not be any abnormally heavy rain.’<ref name="Wunambal" />

Genesis says that the rainbow would be a reminder that God would never again destroy the world with a flood.<ref>Genesis 9:12-17</ref>

=== Criticisms ===

''See also criticism in [[Noah's Ark#Controversy|Noah's Ark]] and [[Flood Geology#Controversy|Flood Geology]].

Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

However, Nozomi Osanai responds that "''...the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4089/ A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, chapter 7], by Nozomi Osanai.</ref>

And Murray Adamthwaite responds regarding the missionary influence, "''...that explanation fails since in many cases secular anthropologists gathered the stories before missionaries reached these tribes with the Gospel. In other cases missionaries have related how they indeed told the story of Noah, only to find that the tribal folk already had a similar tale in their own legends.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2538 Animals, a Deluge and Noah’s Ark]</ref>

== Modern explanations ==

===Black Sea theory===
In 2000, explorers discovered evidence that humans lived where the [[Black Sea]] now is and speculated the sea was created during a great flood <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/</ref>. Dr. Robert Ballard expanded on this theory, postulating that the Black Sea was much lower during the Ice Age (including the finding of a beach thousands of feet underwater), and when the walls holding back the Mediterranean Sea at the Bosporus broke, the sea rushed in and drowned the inhabitants; those who survived told the tale orally, and according to Ballard this became the basis for the flood accounts of Genesis and Gilgamesh [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html]. This theory is for a local flood, and not the world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis and many other cultural traditions. It also doesn't fit with many other details of the Genesis account.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392 Proof of Noah's Flood at the Black Sea?] by Creation Ministries International.</ref>

== Flood geology ==

''See main article: [[Flood geology]]''

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of [[uniformitarian]] geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology.
But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration.
During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologists]]" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles,<ref>The Great Turning Point, by Terry Mortenson. See also a series of articles in the ''Journal of Creation'', commencing with "British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century: part 1" by Terry Mortenson, ''Journal of Creation'' Vol. 11 No. 2 pp. 221-252.</ref> but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the [[geology|geological]] record.
Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood.
The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859,<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3670 What About Continental Drift], Chapter 11 of The Answers Book Updated & Expanded, Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"—Genesis 7:xx), combined with 40 days and nights of rain.
Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave.<ref>The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) and the ark's passengers alighted on the 27th day of the second month of the 601st year of Noah's life (Genesis 8:13-15)</ref>
During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans.
All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became [[fossil]]s, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the [[coal]] beds that are mined today.

==External Links==

*[http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html Greek Myths: Deucalion and the Flood]
*[http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11 (Flood Story)]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html Geological evidence from Northwest Creation]
*[http://www.genesisfiles.com/Library.htm#B Genesis Files website]
*[http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp Was the Flood Global? Answers in Genesis article]
*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html Black Sea theory, from Dr. Robert Ballard and National Geographic]
*[http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore64.html Native American flood story]
*[http://wovoca.com/myths-flood-1.htm Collection of Flood myths]

== Notes ==

<references />

Great Flood

2007-03-27T20:45:42Z

Ben:

[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
Cultures around the world record a world-destroying '''flood''' in their oral or written histories. Today 60% of Americans believe the Biblical account of the Great Flood to be true.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref>

== The Flood accounts ==

The best known of the flood accounts are, the two intermeshed versions found in the book of [[Genesis]], and the version found in the [[Gilgamish Epic]]. Both are written accounts.
The Genesis account is the most detailed of any of the accounts, and the one against which others are usually compared.
It has also been studied the most, with a number of terms used in reference to it, including the '''Flood''', '''Noah's Flood''', the '''Deluge''', the '''Great Flood''', and the '''Noahic flood'''.
The terms ''pre-diluvian'' and ''post-diluvian'' are used to refer to the times before and after the flood respectively.

A table comparing specific details in a number of different flood accounts can be found [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 here].

== The Genesis account ==

The Genesis account is the most detailed account.
In it, God warned Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a flood, because of the wickedness of mankind. Noah was to build an ark and take on it his family and representatives of all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures. The ark was to be 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref> (approximately 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet high), have three decks, and rooms.

God brought the animals and birds to Noah, and there were, per Gen 7:2 two of the "[[unclean (animals)|unclean]]" animals and seven (or seven pairs) of the "[[clean (animals)|clean]]", and per Gen 6:19-20 "two of every sort".

After Noah and his family and all the creatures were on board, God shut the door of the ark.
The flood was brought on by the eruption of subterranean water ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"), and rain.
The rain lasted nearly six weeks (40 days and nights).
The flood waters apparently continued to rise for 150 days, but it was just over a year before the waters had receded enough for the occupants of the ark to leave.

The ark is recorded as having come to rest on the mountains of Ararat, taken by many today to be the existing mountains of that name.
God put a rainbow in the clouds, and said that it was to be a reminder that he would never again destroy the world in a flood. (Genesis does not say that this was the first ever rainbow.)
He also told Noah that it was now okay to eat meat.

== The Gilgamish Epic account ==

The council of the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god who had made man, Ea, to build a boat to take all living being. The length, width, and height were each 120 cubits (about 180 feet). It had seven stories.

The gods got frightened by the flood and retreated to heaven where they cowered and wept.
The flood lasted six days and seven nights, and was accompanied by wind and storm.
Utnapishtim send out a dove followed by a swallow, but both returned, unable to find land. He then sent a raven, which didn't return.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati comments on the Gilgamish Epic:
:It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. ... For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.<ref Name="JS_GE" />

== Other ancient references ==

The Assyrian King [[Ashurbanipal]], who lived in the seventh century B.C., recorded, "I have read intricate tablets inscribed with obscure Sumerian or Akkadian...inscriptions on stone from before the Flood."<ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1032092 Ashurbanipal]</ref>

== Common Themes for Flood Accounts ==

=== Cause ===

Many of the accounts say that the flood was caused by God or some equivalent being.
In Genesis, it was Yahweh<ref>Genesis 6:3</ref>.
In the Gilgamish Epic, it was the council of the gods <ref Name="JS_GE">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic] by Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'', vol. 28 No. 4 pp.12-17</ref>.
In the Bundaba (Australian aboriginal) flood story, it was Ngowungu, the Great Father. <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1468 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories], ''Creation'' Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-9.</ref>
The Greeks recorded it as being [[Zeus]].<ref name="Greek">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek Greek], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>

=== Purpose ===

When the cause of the flood is attributed to a god, the reason is frequently said to be for [[mankind]]'s wickedness.
Genesis adds that "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time".<ref>Genesis 6:5 (NIV)</ref>
The Miao account from China says, in verse, "These did not God's will nor returned His affection. / But fought with each other defying the Godhead. / Their leaders shook fists in the face of the Mighty."<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341 Genesis According to the Miao People], by Edgar A. Truax, ''Impact'', April 1991</ref>
A Navajo account says that it was because of "their sins of adultery and constant quarreling". <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Navajo Navajo (Four Corners area)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak</ref>

=== What saved the people ===

People were generally saved either by floating out the flood, or fleeing to the top of a mountain. In the former case, the vessel took a variety of forms.
A Hopi Indian story has them surviving in the hollow stems of giant reeds<ref name="Hopi">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hopi Hopi], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
The Greek story has them surviving in a chest. <Ref name="Greek" />
In Genesis, Noah was instructed by God to build an ark to dimensions and other specifications included in the account.

=== Who was saved? ===

The survivors were often a single family.
An Australian aboriginal account has Ngadgja, the Supreme One, telling Gajara to take his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives.<ref name="Wunambal">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1467 Aboriginal Flood Legend], by Howard Coates, ''Creation'' Vol. 4 No.3, pp.9-12</ref>
The Masai account from East Africa has Tumbainot taking his two wives, his six sons, and their wives.<ref name="Masai">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Masai Masai (East Africa)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
A Hawaiian story has Nuu taking his wife and three sons. <ref name="Hawaii">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hawaii Hawaii], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
Noah took his wife, his three sons, and their wives.<ref>Genesis 7:13</ref>

=== Birds sent out ===

Genesis describes Noah sending out birds to see if there was yet dry land.<ref>Genesis 8:6-12</ref>
Initially this was unsuccessful, but a subsequent attempt was successful when a dove didn't return. In the Hopi account also, they unsuccessfully sent out birds to find land.<ref name="Hopi" />
An Australian aboriginal account has a cuckoo not returning because it found land.<ref name="Wunambal" />
The Masai account has Tumbainot sending out a dove, which returned because it had no place to rest.<ref name="Masai" />

=== A rainbow ===

The Masai account has four rainbows signifying that God's wrath was over.<ref name="Masai" />
A Hawaiian account has the god Kane leaving a rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness.<ref name="Hawaii" />
From an Australian aboriginal story comes this account:
:Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back. The rainbow lies bent across the sky; he ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, ‘There will not be any abnormally heavy rain.’<ref name="Wunambal" />

Genesis says that the rainbow would be a reminder that God would never again destroy the world with a flood.<ref>Genesis 9:12-17</ref>

=== Criticisms ===

''See also criticism in [[Noah's Ark#Controversy|Noah's Ark]] and [[Flood Geology#Controversy|Flood Geology]].

Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

However, Nozomi Osanai responds that "''...the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4089/ A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, chapter 7], by Nozomi Osanai.</ref>

And Murray Adamthwaite responds regarding the missionary influence, "''...that explanation fails since in many cases secular anthropologists gathered the stories before missionaries reached these tribes with the Gospel. In other cases missionaries have related how they indeed told the story of Noah, only to find that the tribal folk already had a similar tale in their own legends.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2538 Animals, a Deluge and Noah’s Ark]</ref>

== Modern explanations ==

===Black Sea theory===
In 2000, explorers discovered evidence that humans lived where the [[Black Sea]] now is and speculated the sea was created during a great flood <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/</ref>. Dr. Robert Ballard expanded on this theory, postulating that the Black Sea was much lower during the Ice Age (including the finding of a beach thousands of feet underwater), and when the walls holding back the Mediterranean Sea at the Bosporus broke, the sea rushed in and drowned the inhabitants; those who survived told the tale orally, and according to Ballard this became the basis for the flood accounts of Genesis and Gilgamesh [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html]. This theory is for a local flood, and not the world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis and many other cultural traditions. It also doesn't fit with many other details of the Genesis account.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392 Proof of Noah's Flood at the Black Sea?] by Creation Ministries International.</ref>

== Flood geology ==

''See main article: [[Flood geology]]''

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of [[uniformitarian]] geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology.
But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration.
During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologists]]" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles,<ref>The Great Turning Point, by Terry Mortenson. See also a series of articles in the ''Journal of Creation'', commencing with "British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century: part 1" by Terry Mortenson, ''Journal of Creation'' Vol. 11 No. 2 pp. 221-252.</ref> but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the [[geology|geological]] record.
Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood.
The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859,<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3670 What About Continental Drift], Chapter 11 of The Answers Book Updated & Expanded, Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"—Genesis 7:xx), combined with 40 days and nights of rain.
Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave.<ref>The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) and the ark's passengers alighted on the 27th day of the second month of the 601st year of Noah's life (Genesis 8:13-15)</ref>
During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans.
All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became [[fossil]]s, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the [[coal]] beds that are mined today.

==External Links==

*[http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html Greek Myths: Deucalion and the Flood]
*[http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11 (Flood Story)]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html Geological evidence from Northwest Creation]
*[http://www.genesisfiles.com/Library.htm#B Genesis Files website]
*[http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp Was the Flood Global? Answers in Genesis article]
*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html Black Sea theory, from Dr. Robert Ballard and National Geographic]
*[http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore64.html Native American flood story]
*[http://wovoca.com/myths-flood-1.htm Collection of Flood myths]

== Notes ==

<references />

Talk:BBC

2007-03-27T20:19:59Z

Ben: A British Wikipedian says

I live in the UK. I am an evangelical Christian.

I heard a radio article this morning on BBC radio about conservapedia as an alternative to wikipedia. Although the BBC is often liberal, I felt the item gave Conservapedia a fair hearing. Unfortunately, I was rather disappointed by some of your complaints against Wikipedia - direct from your representative's mouth. One of the main concerns seemed to be that Wikipedia use non-US English, and that it was anti-american in its editorial stance.

I have to be honest. As a non-American, I found the inference that US English was the higher form of our shared language to be somewhat offensive, and small minded. If Wikipedia choses to use standard English, how is that any more or less morally acceptable than a wiki that uses American English? I don't believe that American is any more God's special country than the UK, France, or even Nigeria could claim to be? Where does this superiority complex come from?

I am concerned that Conservapedia has missed the point that is is part of the www - WORLD wide web, not the American web. As a Christian, I welcome an alternative viewpoint to Wikipedia. I do not, however, relish the idea that Christian = proAmerican and that the only audience you are serving is American. I ask that you consider your worldwide audience/potential contributors. I would add, I'm not anti American - I've been to your country many times and have many friends there. I'm just not American.

(Name withheld)

:'''A Conservapedia editor responds:'''

:Dear Sir,

:Thank you for your feedback. We have many friends in England also, and I once had the pleasure of being involved in litigation with your barristers across the pond. Many Americans older than I fondly recall coming to your aid in World War II when things were looking quite bleak in London.

:Certainly no offen'''s'''e is intended by preferring the American spelling of words here on Conservapedia. The American spelling is typically more economical in its use of letters, and more people prefer the American spelling to the old British spelling.

:I do wonder why you refer to your spelling as "standard English." Could you join us on Conservapedia and explain that for us?

:Cheers, --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::'''A Conservapedia user responds:'''

::I think that the editor's reply to our British friend is an excellent one, and really demonstrates what Conservapedia is all about, particularly the reference to World War II. The point concerning the more economical approach to spelling embodied by American English is consistent with the philosophy behind the shorter and more concise articles on Conservapedia (when contrasted with other, more verbose online encyclopedias), an approach to language which one of our British friend's very own countrymen, Mr. George Orwell, would have found familiar.

::Cheerio, --[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 00:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::: Thanks, I really appreciated your comments above!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:44, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::You are most welcome!--[[User:Tooner440|Tooner440]] 01:11, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== A British Wikipedian says ==

Hello there. I couldn't help noticing that you did not answer a single thing of that persons queries (except your spelling one, although that does not explain why its non-use makes Wikipedia anti-American). I myself am not anti-American, but I do not see how your arguments make sense.

For example- In your rules you state you are neutral in facts, for example you will call a terrorist group a terrorist group, yet a terrorist group is a point of view, not a fact. In your definition you state it as the use of violence or intimidation to pursue political objectives. In that case, any army in the World is a terrorist organisation.

Point 2- Your articles are many times more biased than wikipedia. One of my edits was removed within minutes for being "liberal censorship of conservative facts", that is stating science. A large collection of users with more liberal, international views may become biased, but a small group who make a single demographic faction with pre-set ideas and relying on the consensus of a few individuals really does fulfil the meaning of the word "Wikiality" (see wikipedia on the subject). The internet is not the American Wide web.

Point 3- Many of your articles lack reliable sources or do not mention facts. For example, in Evolution it states that there are no transitional fossils. Perhaps you have not heard of "Archaeopteryx" or "Cynodont". One article linked to a site which didn't exist, while another cited Conservapedia! Wikipedia may have its flaws but their rule clearly disallows that from happening!

Oh, and finally, I do not see how WW2 is connected to the conversation, nor why it was commented as being a particularly relevant point when it was the most irrelevant point on the page, especially as the Battle of Britain was over. I fully appreciate the sacrifice of our American friends in their fight against fascism and for the freedom of Europe, but "come to our aid when things were looking bleak". Perhaps you should touch up on your history.

I remind you that I'm not anti-American or anti-Christian, but I see your response and most of your site to be fundamentally lacking of any substance whatsoever, incredibly biased and hypocritical, extremely prejudice against Liberals and full of blackwhite remarks (see "Newspeak" from 1984). I agree with my fellow countryman's remarks, and if anything, you could argue that I'm anti-you. I hope we can both see your site succeed (the Internet has very few generally new things nowadays) and my constructive criticism has been helpful. If you have read this far, my congratulations at reading to the end rather than deleting this “liberal propaganda”

Signing out for undoubtedly the last time, your atheist friend, --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

PS. Perhaps you do not know what the definition for “Liberal” is. The dictionary defines it as…

1). Less strict, Tolerant
2). Free from prejudice or bigotry
3). Characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts
4). Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
“Naturally these are all bad things, although… “

User talk:Ben

2007-03-26T20:19:48Z

Ben:

Ben, this is a warning of potential blocking of your account based on your recent edit: this is not Wikipedia. Liberal censorship of supported, conservative facts is not allowed here. That is allowed on Wikipedia, but not here.

Shape up Ben - you should know we only support conservative censorship of supported, liberal facts. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 14:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Are you saying that these facts that don't support your view are liberal, just because they don't agree with your views. By ommitting these facts, this is itself a form of censorship. This site is being continually frustating and incredibly biased. Are you saying that by being neutral, I'm breaking the rules?

If you want to block me, so be it. I openly state that I am a wikipedia editor and an agnostic Britain. But I'm not here to vandalize your website. I embrace all peoples views and I'm merely trying to improve your site. If you wish to ban me for this, then that is a clear form of prejudice. --[[User:Ben|Ben]] 16:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Great Flood

2007-03-26T17:29:29Z

Ben: What rubbish. Mesopotamian cities have been found almost 4000 years ago, as have naturally mumified corpses and their equipment from the bronze age.

[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|300px|right|''The Flood'', by Michaelangelo, detail from the Sistine Chapel, 1509.]]
Cultures around the world record a world-destroying '''flood''' in their oral or written histories. Today 60% of Americans accept as true the Biblical account of the Great Flood.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040216-113955-2061r.htm</ref>

== The Flood accounts ==

The best known of the flood accounts are, firstly, the one found in the book of [[Genesis]], and secondly the one found in the [[Gilgamish Epic]]. Both are written accounts.
The Genesis account is the most detailed of any of the accounts, and the one against which others are usually compared.
It has also been studied the most, with a number of terms used in reference to it, including the '''Flood''', '''Noah's Flood''', the '''Deluge''', the '''Great Flood''', and the '''Noahic flood'''.
The terms ''pre-diluvian'' and ''post-diluvian'' are used to refer to the times before and after the flood respectively.

A table comparing specific details in a number of different flood accounts can be found [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 here].

== The Genesis account ==

The Genesis account is the most detailed account.
In it, God warned Noah that He was going to destroy the world with a flood, because of the wickedness of mankind. Noah was to build an ark and take on it his family and representatives of all air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures. The ark was to be 300 cubits long by 50 cubits wide by 30 cubits high<ref>''Genesis'' 6:15</ref> (approximately 450 feet long, by 75 feet wide, by 45 feet high), have three decks, and rooms.

God brought the animals and birds to Noah, and there were two of the "[[unclean (animals)|unclean]]" animals and seven (or seven pairs) of the "[[clean (animals)|clean]]".

After Noah and his family and all the creatures were on board, God shut the door of the ark.
The flood was brought on by the eruption of subterranean water ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"), and rain.
The rain lasted nearly six weeks (40 days and nights).
The flood waters apparently continued to rise for 150 days, but it was just over a year before the waters had receded enough for the occupants of the ark to leave.

The ark is recorded as having come to rest on the mountains of Ararat, taken by many today to be the existing mountains of that name.
God put a rainbow in the clouds, and said that it was to be a reminder that he would never again destroy the world in a flood. (Genesis does not say that this was the first ever rainbow.)
He also told Noah that it was now okay to eat meat.

== The Gilgamish Epic account ==

The council of the gods decided to destroy mankind with a flood, but Utnapishtim was warned by the god who had made man, Ea, to build a boat to take all living being. The length, width, and height were each 120 cubits (about 180 feet). It had seven stories.

The gods got frightened by the flood and retreated to heaven where they cowered and wept.
The flood lasted six days and seven nights, and was accompanied by wind and storm.
Utnapishtim send out a dove followed by a swallow, but both returned, unable to find land. He then sent a raven, which didn't return.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati comments on the Gilgamish Epic:
:It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. ... For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.<ref Name="JS_GE" />

== Other ancient references ==

The Assyrian King [[Ashurbanipal]], who lived in the seventh century B.C., recorded, "I have read intricate tablets inscribed with obscure Sumerian or Akkadian...inscriptions on stone from before the Flood."<ref>[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1032092 Ashurbanipal]</ref>

== Common Themes for Flood Accounts ==

=== Cause ===

Many of the accounts say that the flood was caused by God or some equivalent being.
In Genesis, it was Yahweh<ref>Genesis 6:3</ref>.
In the Gilgamish Epic, it was the council of the gods <ref Name="JS_GE">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3107 Noah’s Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic] by Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'', vol. 28 No. 4 pp.12-17</ref>.
In the Bundaba (Australian aboriginal) flood story, it was Ngowungu, the Great Father. <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1468 Australian Aboriginal Flood Stories], ''Creation'' Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-9.</ref>
The Greeks recorded it as being [[Zeus]].<ref name="Greek">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Greek Greek], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>

=== Purpose ===

When the cause of the flood is attributed to a god, the reason is frequently said to be for [[mankind]]'s wickedness.
Genesis adds that "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time".<ref>Genesis 6:5 (NIV)</ref>
The Miao account from China says, in verse, "These did not God's will nor returned His affection. / But fought with each other defying the Godhead. / Their leaders shook fists in the face of the Mighty."<ref>[http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=341 Genesis According to the Miao People], by Edgar A. Truax, ''Impact'', April 1991</ref>
A Navajo account says that it was because of "their sins of adultery and constant quarreling". <ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Navajo Navajo (Four Corners area)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak</ref>

=== What saved the people ===

People were generally saved either by floating out the flood, or fleeing to the top of a mountain. In the former case, the vessel took a variety of forms.
A Hopi Indian story has them surviving in the hollow stems of giant reeds<ref name="Hopi">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hopi Hopi], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
The Greek story has them surviving in a chest. <Ref name="Greek" />
In Genesis, Noah was instructed by God to build an ark to dimensions and other specifications included in the account.

=== Who was saved? ===

The survivors were often a single family.
An Australian aboriginal account has Ngadgja, the Supreme One, telling Gajara to take his wife, his sons, and his sons' wives.<ref name="Wunambal">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1467 Aboriginal Flood Legend], by Howard Coates, ''Creation'' Vol. 4 No.3, pp.9-12</ref>
The Masai account from East Africa has Tumbainot taking his two wives, his six sons, and their wives.<ref name="Masai">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Masai Masai (East Africa)], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
A Hawaiian story has Nuu taking his wife and three sons. <ref name="Hawaii">[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html#Hawaii Hawaii], in ''Flood Stories from Around the World'' by Mark Isaak.</ref>
Noah took his wife, his three sons, and their wives.<ref>Genesis 7:13</ref>

=== Birds sent out ===

Genesis describes Noah sending out birds to see if there was yet dry land.<ref>Genesis 8:6-12</ref>
Initially this was unsuccessful, but a subsequent attempt was successful when a dove didn't return. In the Hopi account also, they unsuccessfully sent out birds to find land.<ref name="Hopi" />
An Australian aboriginal account has a cuckoo not returning because it found land.<ref name="Wunambal" />
The Masai account has Tumbainot sending out a dove, which returned because it had no place to rest.<ref name="Masai" />

=== A rainbow ===

The Masai account has four rainbows signifying that God's wrath was over.<ref name="Masai" />
A Hawaiian account has the god Kane leaving a rainbow as a perpetual sign of his forgiveness.<ref name="Hawaii" />
From an Australian aboriginal story comes this account:
:Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back. The rainbow lies bent across the sky; he ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, ‘There will not be any abnormally heavy rain.’<ref name="Wunambal" />

Genesis says that the rainbow would be a reminder that God would never again destroy the world with a flood.<ref>Genesis 9:12-17</ref>

=== Criticisms ===

''See also criticism in [[Noah's Ark#Controversy|Noah's Ark]] and [[Flood Geology#Controversy|Flood Geology]].

Critics of the global flood suggest that the flood accounts are unrelated accounts of local floods, or stories influenced by the arrival of missionaries.

However, Nozomi Osanai responds that "''...the detailed nature of the widely spread statements has common elements to the Bible. In fact, even people who live far from the sea or in mountainous areas have flood traditions which are similar to the Genesis account.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4089/ A comparative study of the flood accounts in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis, chapter 7], by Nozomi Osanai.</ref>

And Murray Adamthwaite responds regarding the missionary influence, "''...that explanation fails since in many cases secular anthropologists gathered the stories before missionaries reached these tribes with the Gospel. In other cases missionaries have related how they indeed told the story of Noah, only to find that the tribal folk already had a similar tale in their own legends.''"<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2538 Animals, a Deluge and Noah’s Ark]</ref>

== Modern explanations ==

===Black Sea theory===
In 2000, explorers discovered evidence that humans lived where the [[Black Sea]] now is and speculated the sea was created during a great flood <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/09/13/great.flood.finds.ap/</ref>. Dr. Robert Ballard expanded on this theory, postulating that the Black Sea was much lower during the Ice Age (including the finding of a beach thousands of feet underwater), and when the walls holding back the Mediterranean Sea at the Bosporus broke, the sea rushed in and drowned the inhabitants; those who survived told the tale orally, and according to Ballard this became the basis for the flood accounts of Genesis and Gilgamesh [http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html]. This theory is for a local flood, and not the world-wide flood as recorded in Genesis and many other cultural traditions. It also doesn't fit with many other details of the Genesis account.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392 Proof of Noah's Flood at the Black Sea?] by Creation Ministries International.</ref>

== Flood geology ==

''See main article: [[Flood geology]]''

Flood geology is the study of the Earth's geology from the point of view that the Genesis account is true and accurate, and that evidence of the Flood can be found in the geology of the Earth.

Until the rise of [[uniformitarian]] geology in the early 19th century, most geologists accepted the Noahic deluge as part of geology.
But [[James Hutton]] proposed in 1795 that geology ought to be based on the processes that we see happening now, thereby automatically ruling the Flood out of consideration.
During the 19th century a number of "[[scriptural geologists]]" held out against the rising acceptance of Hutton's principles,<ref>The Great Turning Point, by Terry Mortenson. See also a series of articles in the ''Journal of Creation'', commencing with "British scriptural geologists in the first half of the nineteenth century: part 1" by Terry Mortenson, ''Journal of Creation'' Vol. 11 No. 2 pp. 221-252.</ref> but they fought a losing battle and interest in flood geology virtually died out by the end of the 19th century.

However, in the second half of the 20th century, interest was revived amongst people keen to show that the biblical account was correct, and a small but growing number of geologists are now studying this field again, although the vast majority of geologists still reject the idea of a global flood on Earth.

Flood geologists propose that such a world-wide, year-long flood would have caused massive erosion, sedimentation, and geological movements, and leaving plenty of evidence in the [[geology|geological]] record.
Many propose that there was a single continent before the flood that broke up during the flood.
The idea of tectonic plate movement was proposed by creationary scientist Antonio Snider in 1859,<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3670 What About Continental Drift], Chapter 11 of The Answers Book Updated & Expanded, Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> although it was not until several other scientists had proposed similar ideas that the idea was adopted by mainstream scientists in the last few decades of the 20th century.

According to flood geologists, the flood resulted from subterranean water erupting to the surface ("''the fountains of the deep were opened''"—Genesis 7:xx), combined with 40 days and nights of rain.
Although the rain stopped after 40 days, the flood waters continued to rise for 150 days, and lasted just over a year before Noah and the others on the boat were able to leave.<ref>The flood began on the 17th day of the second month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Genesis 7:11) and the ark's passengers alighted on the 27th day of the second month of the 601st year of Noah's life (Genesis 8:13-15)</ref>
During the flood, there was massive tectonic activity, including some land rising up and other land dropping, such that the waters ended up in newly-deepened oceans.
All the animals and birds (except those on the ark), and large numbers of sea creatures perished, and many of them were buried so quickly that they became [[fossil]]s, accounting for the vast majority of fossils existing today.

Flood geology also proposes that the flood waters swept together and buried large mats of vegetation ripped from the surface of the Earth, forming the [[coal]] beds that are mined today.

==External Links==

*[http://www.maicar.com/GML/Flood.html Greek Myths: Deucalion and the Flood]
*[http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet 11 (Flood Story)]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologycolumn.html Geological evidence from Northwest Creation]
*[http://www.genesisfiles.com/Library.htm#B Genesis Files website]
*[http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T2631]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/global10.asp Was the Flood Global? Answers in Genesis article]
*[http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html Black Sea theory, from Dr. Robert Ballard and National Geographic]
*[http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony/lore64.html Native American flood story]
*[http://wovoca.com/myths-flood-1.htm Collection of Flood myths]

== Notes ==

<references />

Freedom fighter

2007-03-24T19:45:38Z

Ben: /* Examples */

Freedom fighters are irregular armed forces that fight against the regular armed forces of an occupying power. "Freedom Fighters" are often seen as [[terrorism|terrorists]]; this distinction depends almost entirely on who you ask.

==Examples==

*Those who fought to free the United States from Britain.
*Those who fought to free France from [[Nazi]] occupation.
*The forces of Federation d'Un Combatere Kibenerche (Federation of Kibenerche Fighters), who fought against the French in [[Western Mali]]
*Iraqi insurgent groups against UN occupation (this a good example of what may be considered terrorism by some countries, depending on point of view).

Freedom fighter

2007-03-24T19:45:23Z

Ben: /* Examples */

Freedom fighters are irregular armed forces that fight against the regular armed forces of an occupying power. "Freedom Fighters" are often seen as [[terrorism|terrorists]]; this distinction depends almost entirely on who you ask.

==Examples==

*Those who fought to free the United States from Britain.
*Those who fought to free France from [[Nazi]] occupation.
*The forces of Federation d'Un Combatere Kibenerche (Federation of Kibenerche Fighters), who fought against the French in [[Western Mali]]
*Iraqi insurgent groups against UN occupation (this a good example of what may be considered terroism by some countries, depending on point of view).

Terrorism

2007-03-23T14:45:35Z

Ben:

{{stub}}

'''Terrorism''' is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Terrorism is not the same thing as [[freedom fighter | freedom fighting]].

== Well-Known Current Terrorist Groups ==

* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Hamas]]
* [[Abu Sayyaf]]
* [[Ansar Al-Islam]]
* [[Hezbollah]]
* [[Irish Republican Army]]
* [[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]]
* [[Tamil Tigers]]
* [[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]]
* [[Jemaa Islamiya]]
* [[ETA]]
* [[Continuity IRA]]
* [[Real ETA]]
* [[Mossad]]

== War on terror ==

===Fighting terrorism===

[http://lightonthings.blogspot.com#fight The Reality Show - The Watch the Fight] links to many sites that deal with the 'war on terror'.

1984

2007-03-13T11:38:28Z

Ben:

'''Nineteen Eighty-Four''' is a novel by [[George Orwell]] in what is now called the [[dystopia]]n genre.

It was originally to be titled "The Last Man in Europe," but the title was changed at the publisher's suggestion. It is often suggested that "eighty-four" is a reversal of "forty-eight," the year in which the book was written, but this has never been confirmed.

Orwell was influenced by Jack London's novel ''The Iron Heel,'' and Yevgeny Zamyatin's ''We.''

1984 describes an [[alternate history]] in which Oceania is at war with [[Eurasia]]. The book describes a dystopia where everyone is watched where the government controls nearly all aspects of individuals' lives.

The [[protagonist]], Winston Smith, works in the Ministry of Truth, altering records to fit the Party's current view of history. However, Smith grows to gradually disagree with the Party and what it stands for. Eventually, he and his lover Julia are captured by the thought police and tortured to the point where they once again love the party.