Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2015-09-28T22:32:51Z

Benp: /* Water on Mars */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::::Well I went ahead and did it. Hope everyone likes it. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 09:33, 24 February 2014 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
 
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)

:Articles are cited here for their facts, not for any additional liberal speculation or spin that is included. There is no atheistic reason to claim 6,000 light-years away if it were not true. The confirmation of the [[Bible]] by a scientific culture that tends to be atheistic in outlook is remarkable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for rephrasing that for me. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 10:28, 23 February 2014 (EST)

:::In all seriousness, though... The article is talking about the ''oldest'' star, not the ''farthest'' star. If we were citing it to mean that ''no'' star is farther than 6,000 light-years, then the source simply doesn't hold up. And if the source is not being cited for that reason, then the statement has no grounds. Could you further clarify, please? [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:48, 23 February 2014 (EST)

::::The age of the universe is best estimated by looking at the oldest star, not a younger one. Claims of enormous distances for younger stars are disproven by the [[horizon problem]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 23 February 2014 (EST)

== Negative Numbers ==

Sorry for my misunderstanding, but how do any of the Bible passages cited provide examples of negative numbers, especially within multiplication? If we could provide that citation in-article, it would also improve the quality. [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:51, 23 February 2014 (EST)

== Malthusianism and the economics of plenty ==

William Bradford's writing in his diary provides a good example of God's powers and use of conservative economics,(Bradford writes about his thankfulness for God's wisdom in that very way almost word for word) but its not the examples from the Old/New Testament as written about in the article. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 10:57, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

:Thanks for improving the citation. Do you have any additional edits you'd like to make on this particular point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:22, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

::Not at the moment, no. The Bradford example could be outside of the scope of the article to begin with, once better citations can be introduced. I had it in mind as a placeholder in the context of the prior reverted edit. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 11:52, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

== Water on Mars ==

It occurs to me that, among all the hullabaloo about water on Mars, it would be worthwhile to point out that water beyond Earth is old news to Christians; the Bible clearly established the existence of the "waters above" long before astronomers even thought about hypothesizing it...and, indeed, before there was even a formal discipline of astronomy! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] ([[User talk:Benp|talk]]) 18:32, 28 September 2015 (EDT)

Talk:Global warming

2012-12-31T19:57:19Z

Benp: /* Beneficial effects of global warming ? */

Merge with [[Science of global warming]]? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

good idea

== Let's put our thinking caps on ==
You guys are right that there isn't a widespread popular consensus for global climate warming change, but as a conservative I feel like we should try to figure out what is really going on instead of going with the current popular trends. There must be a reason that the National Academy of Science -a non partisan organization- concluded that "a strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems", and that 97% of global scientists studying the issue have built a consensus around this idea. While I am still not convinced, I think we need to take a second look at the evidence instead of flatly denying global warming's existence based on the tiny fraction of the world's climate we see in our immediate vicinity. Looking outside and seeing snow and -50 degree temperatures tells us nothing about global climate trends, no matter how easy it might be to lampoon Al Gore when this happens. I do hate that guy though. 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record, no matter how cold your backyard is. As conservatives, I think we need to move toward accepting that there is overwhelming evidence for global warming (or climate change, whatever we want to call it). However, we should advocate market based solutions, like big time tax cuts for American clean energy companies and people who innovate, instead of the crap and trade the libs are trying to shove down our throats! let's do what reagan did, and that is recognize environmental problems and advance free market policy to solve them! common sense people.
[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] , 18 November 2010

:I think the problem is that [[leftists]] have intertwined the term "global warming" with their evidence-lacking [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]; the two terms are incorrectly used together and many times interpreted as meaning the same thing, but they should be separate from each other. Evidence and current data prove that [[ClimateGate#Global_Warming_Facts|global warming has not occurred since 1995]], although warming periods have happened before - these temporary periods of global warming are not due to man-made changes. These are scientific findings based on data which [[Professor]] [[Phil Jones]] has admitted as fact. Global warming may have happened in the past, but there is simply no scientific data present today that suggests humans are the cause of these natural periods of [[global warming]] and [[global cooling]]. The anthropogenic global warming theory does, however, present a great opportunity for [[progressives]] to force [[big government]] policies onto the American people; although, it is my interpretation that such policies are [[unconstitutional]] because allowing the government to enforce this environmental agenda via [[cap and trade]] is not inline with the principles of [[limited government]]. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 14:04, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::However much we despise liberals and the cap and trade bill, we must also consider the actual merits of the issue. Even if global warming is false--a point I am by no means convinced of--many of the policies that would fight it are also good for the economy, such as tax cuts for clean, sustainable energy companies, including nuclear, as well as targeted tax policy to combat pollutants that we know harm the environment and our health, like smog and smoke from factories. Ending our dependence on fossil fuels should not be dismissed because of disbelief in the notion of global warming, in fact, it should be embraced by conservatives for several reasons. 1. It takes the main source of revenue away from middle-east dictators ($700 B per year according to Sen. McCain), 2. It would help America create new industries and again lead the world in manufacturing cutting edge goods, and 3. It would eliminate the cloud of awful smog sitting above my head right now! Maybe I would be able to see some stars at night for once!. Do you agree that we should pursue a renewable energy, market-based agenda regardless of whatever global warming garbage the liberals try to manufacture?[[User:Moderate|Moderate]] 17:10, 19 November 2010 (PST)

:Many centrists are now convinced of Global Frauding. Climategate showed how deep the lies really are. [[User:Teapartyman]]

== Other planets ==

I just wanted to explain why I deleted the material that was in place on this matter and why I disagree with its reinstatement, rather than getting into an edit war.

Yes there are measurements from other planets that go back several years but that does not constitute a continuous measurement period. The temporal and spatial coverage of such measurements varies each time and is naturally very limited in this respect. Measurements taken relatively close together in time have shown stark differences that cannot simply be said to be climate change but rather are natural short time-scale variations in time and space as you would find if you compared the temperature in the Sahara and the Antarctic on different days and with each other. The data that does exist has not been sufficient for scientists to produce running averages with anything like the reliability of those used for earth. Long-term trends are built using ''these'' figures not simply single temperature measurements from irregular times and places. As such it is not possible to make any accurate claims about climate change on these planets within the past few decades based on the available data. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:56, 26 February 2009 (EST)

:Congrats RobertWDP, I love when you follow the rules like that, we want respectable contributors as yourself. I feel that you are knowledgeable on the climate subject. If you say the data is inconclusive (other planets) and therefore cannot be used. I am not convinced. Show me studies that solar system planets have no bearing on Earth climate models, then cite references as proof.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 22:25, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::I shall try to elaborate on points Robert has already made. We do not have ice core samples from Neptune or Pluto. We don't have fossil data from Mars or Titan. What data we do have is at best a starting point for further analysis. On Earth we have much more data, and we also have the ability to carry out almost any experiment. As Robert said, what data we do have about the climates of other planets is absolutely useless for establishing a model of any kind. It could be that Mars is undergoing a typical cycle of climate change that is unique to its environment. We don't know. It could be that Neptune is warming because more gasses than normal are collapsing to the center of the planet and releasing heat caused by the friction of the particles rubbing against each other as they fall. We don't know. Premises don't spring from nothing, so we can't make an argument out of facts that we don't have.

::It is also a bad idea to compare the climates of gas giants with rocky planets: the differences are so extreme that it is hardly worth going over.

::I'll end by saying this: If common argument is that we don't really understand the Earth's climate, then how are we to know it any better through comparison of environments that we know almost nothing about? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::I'll add that if ALL our solar system is getting warm at the same time, insufficient evidence? I believe that's the data that was presented, was at least cited. I am all for the truth in this matter. If you have a source, add it but don't delete the point that is countered.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::If the entire solar system was warming at the same rate in the same instance (now) then you would have a very compelling case that human impact is far less than originally believed. However, we currently lack those facts if they in fact exist at all. Gas giants are not analogous to rocky planets; reasons for their climate change(s) is an entirely different matter for science to investigate. Also consider that the outer planets receive very little solar energy; the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality. Mars could be warming because it is unable to deflect any appreciable amount of solar energy it receives. We have an atmosphere, and a magnetic shield of sorts to mitigate the influx of solar energy, so if we could take humanity out of the equation, Earth would likely warm at a much lower rate than Mars or any other planets if just due to solar activity alone.

::::The truth is though, that we just don't know. There's no credible way to link the climates of different planets in the fashion this section does. Gaseous planets obviously can't be compared to our own, and the conditions inherent to the other planets open up so many variables that we have no hope of meaningfully comparing them to our own in the near (or even distant) future.

::::What I mean by all this is that you don't really need a cited source (though I accept where the burden appropriately lies) to realize that you can't compare apples to oranges.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 00:31, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::''"the entire idea that the sun could provide sufficient energy to increase their average temperature is not based in reality"'' I am disagreeing but I don't know what I am disagreeing about. Sunlight on Pluto is insufficient for solar temperature fluctuations? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 00:51, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Consider the distances involved: Pluto is so far away that the sun would at best appear as a very bright star if you stood on the surface and tried to find it. Granted, Pluto isn't so far away that it receives no solar energy whatsoever, but the amount (inverse square law) is so negligible that you can't ascribe significant weight to it. In fact, Pluto only warms to the point of having a minimal atmosphere after it's orbit changes by almost 3 billion miles.

:::::I don't want to run into 90/10 problems, but again I gotta ask: how can we compare Pluto to the Earth, or even Mars to the Earth when they are so different that they are barely similar?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:05, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::The sun is gigantic! [http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/sun/sun_size_distance.html] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)

::::::And what's your point?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::The sun is everything, all encompassing, all powerful and to say comparing planets in our solar system are like comparing apples with oranges, I say hooey! The IPCC hasn't taken into account sun irradiation, solar spots, and a host of other issues. Their findings are the heart of Global Warming Politics. It has already been disproved no matter how many agree to its findings. As YECs correctly point out, you can't just throw seven apples on the floor, all at once, perfectly spaced. Yet, God aligned the planets in our system that way. God controls the destiny of Earth, not man. God tells us it is a sin to worry. Leave mother nature for God to decide. As said in 'Platoon', "We all gotta die sometime." Bot capture guy says what? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:27, 4 March 2009 (EST)

So are you telling me that the most extensively studied body in the sky, has somehow been omitted from all studies related to global warming despite the very necessary fact that the sun is probably the most important part of our climate (Being the driving force and all...)? I mean not to sound condescending, but the sun has been factored into every single climate model period because without the sun we don't really have a climate. The verdict? The sun is not the primary causative agent behind global warming. If the sun's output was so high that it was warming Pluto at (for the sake of argument) the same rate as Earth, we'd be dead. So the outer planets no, don't indicate anything about the climates of the inner planets unless it is understood that the outer planets (especially the gas giants) have some analogous variables as the inner planets do.

Also, please note that the IPCC is usually criticized for /understating/ global warming, but it's predictions are still "There is GW, humans activity is the cause." The more nuanced questions of "by how much..." "by what specific behavior..." have yet to be answered, no one disagrees there, but we can't answer those questions if we must continually go back and reassert that what we already know to be true is true.

Also what is perfectly spaced about the planets? Pluto went (back when it was a planet, though I still personally consider it such) from 9th farther to 8th farthest planet depending on when you looked at it. Uranus is helplessly tilted on its side. Saturn's rings are also note stable. What about any of this is perfection? If your idea of perfection is rooted in the tradition of Platonic forms, then I could see your point, but then again always assigning God as the reason why X occurred when we don't currently know only sets up God to fail in the long run when we DO figure it out. If God exists, and I assume he does, he does not exist in such a way that we can view him through a telescope.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 15:18, 5 March 2009 (EST)

:This is a typical argument, used by liberals to trick the ignorant. I don't know whether you are a trickster or one of the tricked, but it doesn't matter.

:The sun's output consists of energy and matter. The energy that heats the earth is infrared light, which is what McDonald's uses to keep the French Fries warm. The matter is called cosmic rays, but these are actually charged particles; they move slower than the speed of light.

:Variations in the '''energy output''' of the sun have little effect on the earth's climate, but variations in cosmic rays have a significant effect.

:The difference between a sincere person and a liberal liar depends on whether he'll stop saying something after he finds out that it is not true. So, I'll ask you: if someone can prove to your satisfaction that variations in solar output, i.e., [[cosmic rays]], have a greater effect on the temperature of the earth's atmosphere, will you stop saying otherwise? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:20, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

== Media claims ==

Again, I shall bring this issue here rather than risk reverting an admin.

Jpatt, you state quite blatantly that Boykoff is biased towards global warming. I have to ask at this point (this is actually a question not an attempt at an insult in case of any apparent ambiguity) if you have read any of his research or actually know where his grants come from? If the answer is no to the latter in particular then such comments as you have added to the article would amount to libel, which it would be virtually impossible for you to defend against. I am familiar with his work and so hopefully can be of some use here. Boykoff's work is not actually so much research on the science of climate change itself. He actually studies how climate change (amongst other things) is portrayed and perceived by politicians, the public, and the media, not to mention the actual climate scientists. As such the funding for such research which generally involves looking at freely available material, mostly newspaper articles, is pretty negligible, especially when compared to actual climate studies that I assume you are referring to. Although I admit I cannot state for certain the actual source of the funding, I would be quite certain it is from a source that specifically funds media research and not actual climate studies. As such, Boykoff is actually studying issues such as possible bias regarding the issues of climate science, especially in politics and reporting and even mentions media bias on numerous occasions. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:09, 27 February 2009 (EST)
:Further, I would request that if my points above are not adequately addressed (i.e. the removal of libellous claims about an individual) then I would instead request that you simply allow me to remove all reference to the person's work rather than have it and him portrayed in such a way. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 07:15, 27 February 2009 (EST)
::Please note that I have now done this. There should be little argument not only due to my points above but also as I added the references in the first place. I am disappointed at te attitude that has been taken by some. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 19:01, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Quotation ==

The grammar and punctuation in the quotation from Obama in the article could be improved.

== Generally ==

The ecological movement generally has been described as a white attempt to stop non-whites'
industrialising, a middle-class attempt to stop working-class whites' industrialising,
an attempt to conjure up salaries for millions of scientists or an emotional
substitute for failed socialism.

== Not only liberals ==

Edited the section of liberal claims of consensus. There are more groupos than liberals that are claiming consensus on this issue. Moreover, that information seems old, maybe the whole article should be refreshed.

Also, took away the quotation marks from "consesus", otherwise it looks stupid.~~

No only liberals, make the claim that there is consensus. They claim that there is consensus, with other groups but that doesn't make it so. Also, it's better to have quotation marks since then we emphasize that there isn't any real consensus. Finally your spelling, could be improved.

==Hackers evidence scam ==

Working on other stuff myself, but thought this may be note worthy for an editor, though its depth and impact is yet to be ascertained:

[http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html ''Hackers Prove Global Warming Is A Scam'']

"One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO."

Also [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM ''The Dog Ate Global Warming Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?''][[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 09:39, 21 November 2009 (EST)

==list of New York Times articles dating back to 1855 addressing the global warming and cooling==

http://newsbusters.org/node/11640

Here or on the controversy page?[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 22:47, 21 November 2009 (EST)

:Good question, but not an urgent one. We need to start separating the [[science]] of global warming from the [[politics]]. The "[[greenhouse effect]]" is real, but the threat of a [[runaway greenhouse effect]] is overhyped, and [[politicized science]] has contaminated the educational process.

:We need to give our series of [[global warming]]-related articles an overhaul. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 00:55, 22 November 2009 (EST)

::This an excellent point. I haven't gone through it fully to check every source, but I did notice the source on the consensus of climatologists about anthropogenic global warming is from 1992, and the results of current polls are almost a full 180 degree change from the ones in the 1992 poll.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
:::I'll post the links and such here, so I could hopefully get an edit green-lighted. Heres an article on the survey http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm and hers the survey itself http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

== Science related sections should be placed first... ==

There's really no reason for the sections regarding the 'politics' and 'liberal claims of consensus' to come first. It seems appropriate that all of the scientific sections should come first in an article about a scientific issue.

Also, while I understand that many global warming supporters have a liberal inclination, doesn't this seem a bit biased: "'''Liberal''' claims of consensus"?[[User:JPope|JPope]] 13:01, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:No bias on our part. First, it is mostly liberals who claim there is a [[scientific consensus]] on whether global warming is more natural or artificial. Secord, the "claim of consensus" is entirely manufactured, contradicting all surveys actually conducted of climate scientists. Less than 1/3 of scientists polled accept any of the key ideas of the [[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:21, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick==
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/ Good picture that should be public.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 20:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

==Intro==

Cut from intro:

*into the atmosphere is increasing the temperature of the world by changing the ability of heat to escape the atmosphere.

*Some gases attributed with causing this effect are produced by industrial and power plants, while many others come from natural phenomena. In addition to atmospheric gas content, many other factors control the earth's temperature, which has its own pattern of heating and cooling.

*While many climate scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, some computer models designed to predict long term trends fail to predict recent short-term cooling that the Earth is experiencing. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125686509223717691.html Earth Cools, and Fight Over Warming Heats Up, Wall Street Journal, 2 November 2009]</ref> Because 1998 was the year of El Nino, a natural phenomenon that occurs intermittently and causes the year in which it occurs to be anomalously hot, the relation of that year to longer trends is unclear. As temperatures have been falling since 1998, increasing doubt is being cast on the validity of global warming claims.

We need to distinguish between:
#a period of [[global warming period|rising world air temperatures]]
#a scientific theory about [[global warming theory|what causes the above]]
#what activists mean when they say things like, "Global warming is real"

The first is easy enough. It happens when air temperatures go up.

The second requires explaining all the various major theories explaining this. Liberals hate this, because this gives something for conservatives to compare with reality (see [[independent review]]).

The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)

<references/>

==Issues of independent review==

Cut from intro:

:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims

First off, [[peer review]] is not the same as [[independent review]]. Journal editors have a system of [[peer review]] that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.

[[Independent review]], on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. [[Science]] advances when scientists use elements of the [[scientific method]] such as ensuring that every [[hypothesis]] is [[falsifiable]] (see also [[reproducible results]]).

The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and "[[Expelled]]"). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)

==Might have to lock the article again==

Someone added a clearly incorrect "fact", with attribution to a "History Encyclopedia" which turned out to be Wikipedia in disguise:

: If their biased findings are to be believed, the IPCC concluded that the global average surface temperature warmed about 0.6 °F during the 20th Century. [http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming Growing Signals of Global Warming] U.S. History Encyclopedia

Whoever did this should not be allowed to contribute to this article any more. F = Fahrenheit, and C = Centigrade. The IPCC conclusion was for centigrade (or [[Celsius]] as non-Americans like to say). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:21, 31 January 2010 (EST)

:Hey, Ed....What do you think of moving this to Global Warming Conspiracy? Just an idea, in the interest of accuracy. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:57, 31 January 2010 (EST)

No, TK, we will always need an article on [[global warming]], because it is "real" - in the sense of occurring naturally over and over throughout history. Every [[ice age]] has been followed by an [[interglacial]] period when temperatures go back up again.

We must separate the [[independent review|independently reviewed]] science from the politically motivated distortions, which is a confusing and complicated task. Science is hard enough, but when you have 90% of the mainstream media controlled by liberal "[[advocacy journalists]]" the job is ten times as hard. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:03, 6 February 2010 (EST)
:Splitting the article between complementary "Climate Change" and "Anthropogenic Global Warming Conspiracy" articles (Or Man-caused? Anthropogenic is just too long) might help. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 14:08, 6 February 2010 (EST)

::I don't like the term [[climate change]], if it's nothing more than a euphemism for [[AGW]]. About 4 years ago, when I almost had the pro-AGW pov-pushers stopped at Wikipedia, they decided to change the terminology. This had the desired effect of confusing everybody and bought them more time.

::There are only two things going on here:
::#Scientific theories about what makes the earth's atmosphere get warmer and colder
::#Attempts to promote treaties and taxes, based on these theories

::We don't need a lot of different articles. "[[Global warming]]" should be the main science article - split into sub-articles for ease of writing; "[[Global warming controversy]]" should be about the political clash between the two main sides: liberals and their ilk who support [[AGW]] theory because they want the [[Kyoto Protocol]], [[carbon tax]]es, etc. & conservatives along with a few brave independent scientists who oppose the [[AGW]] because it's contradicted by the facts.

==Warmest year or decade==

Various claims have been made that this or that recent year is the "warmest" in recent memory. Then, this claim is used to argue that the [[AGW|global warming theory]] must be true. This is in the same category as claiming that there has never been a time when there was open, ice-free water at the [[North Pole]], or that the polar bear population is decreasing, or that some famous glacier or snow-capped mountain has less ice.

None of these claims - even if true - would have any bearing on whether human beings are heating up the atmosphere too much (see [[AGW|global warming theory]]). But shouldn't liberals admit their theory is nothing but hot air, if any of these claims are disproven? Of course not, the public can't concentrate on the science long enough! The liberals just quickly change the subject to another claim.

Anyway, this article would probably be a good place to rebut all these claims. Who wants to help? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:17, 6 February 2010 (EST)

==Conservatives also believe in Global Warming==

I know that many of us are skeptical about global warming and that's great, we should cover all the reasons for skepticism in this article. But many Conservatives do believe in Global Warming. I'm one of them. Newt Gingrich is another. So I don't see this as a thing where anyone who believes NASA is a liberal. I want lower taxes, I want smaller government, but I think we can lower pollution and reduce our dependence on foreign oil at the same time and both are good for our country. Lindsay graham said as much himself, and I think McCain did too.

I think we need to balance this article, not between libs and Conservatives, but between Conservatives who are convinced about global warming and Conservatives who aren't.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:32, 11 February 2010 (EST)
:You're absolutely right that not all conservatives believe in global warming. (And I'm surprised you didn't cite Margaret Thatcher next to Gingrich!) And I don't think anybody can be against reducing our dependence on foreign oil. I believe everybody agrees: the less reliant we are on the Middle East, the better.
:But the recent ClimateGate scandal should increase your doubt somewhat, I'd hope, about global warming. More and more, evidence is coming forward which demonstrates that this has all been either an outright fraud or an extraordinary exaggeration of regular and natural climate cycles.
:Nevertheless, if you would like to propose any large-scale edits to the article, you're welcome to! Post your suggested additional section here, for review by the most senior administrators, and perhaps they will be added to the article. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:38, 11 February 2010 (EST)

Jacob, I understand why you might think that and I respect your opinion. I, personally, think that the day we put a man on the moon was about the best proof ever that this is the best country that's ever been. I love our space program, I love our science and technology, and I believe that science comes up with the best answers about things like this.

There was a scam at the institute in England and the IVPP is exaggerated, you are right. Gore is a dope, no question. But NASA has been taking thousands of satellite and weather station measurements and they say the CO2 level is going up, the earth is warming, and that it's caused by the extra CO2 we are burning. It's millions of tons of coal and oil and natural gas we burn every year. I understand about interglacial periods and so on, but even then, even if it was natural, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere would be our best option for saving our agriculture and avoiding a lot of trouble.

Even Rick Warren, the guy who wrote the book that my wife gave me that made me accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior, agrees that we need to do something about it.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 14:59, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:I agree with JacobB. I think any claims made prior to [[ClimateGate]] on Global warming should be invalid until/unless more recent, similar claims are again said by the same politicians who previously thought Global warming was caused by humans. It's one thing to agree with what the "consensus" of scientists have claimed over the last decade as possibly true, but it doesn't seem fair or right to suggest that the same people still have the same opinion of the consensus after it's found their "science" could be less than accurate. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)
::Mpauline, please! I'm also a huge supporter of the space program. So was President Bush, and now Obama's killing the budget for it! We clearly agree on many issues, and if you're conservative you'll find you have common ground with basically everybody here. When it comes to climate change, we could argue all day - but let's not! Instead, put on this talk page below the section you wish to add to the article, and people with far more authority than me will review your proposed edit, and we'll reach an outcome that we're all pleased with. You know the old saying, "You cut, I chose?" for reaching compromise? Well, first you have to cut, ie, show us your proposed edit. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:07, 11 February 2010 (EST)
You got it Jacob. Thanks. I'll put something up soon. Derek, that's a fair point, but the new NASA report came out after the Climategate scandal. They were making exaggerated claims over there in England, but I believe that our American capabilities are way better. NOAA and NASA's new measurements say the oceans got hotter in the last ten years than they've ever measured.[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 15:31, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:::NASA and NOAA won't do any better, given the current administration's penchant for buying into man being the cause of climate change. The Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly, over thousands of years. That is natural, put in motion by God, and if someone believes they can do anything to change those cooling and warming periods, they are nuts. Simply put, if it is God's plan that we cease to exist, that is it. If His plan is for us to survive He will be the cause of mankind's salvation, not man. If one accepted what atheists believe to be true, I still would say man's puny attempts to change forces on a scale millions of times greater than us would be doomed to failure...if we all went off fossil fuels tomorrow, perhaps we would succeed in slowing such warming by a few years. What then? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:52, 11 February 2010 (EST)

OK, TK, I respect that, and many other Conservatives believe that. But that is not what all Conservatives believe.
Myself and many other Evangelical Christians believe that God very well might expect us to clean up our own mess. I assure you that NOAA and NASA know full well about natural cycles in the climate. They know full well that there was no ice at the poles in the Paleocene. They have taken natural cycles into account, but they say the CO2 levels and temperatures are going up much faster than they do during natural cycles, and they know this from air bubbles trapped in ice cores. JacobB above is right, President Bush supported NASA and NOAA just like Reagan did.
And, you know, I know that liberals believe in global warming, and I don't like agreeing with them, but even they can be right about one thing. I mean, Al Gore probably believes that 2+2=4, and I'm not going to say the answer is 5 just to disagree with him on every single thing.
I know I won't convince you and I'm already convinced by teh evidence I've seen. We both have good points. This article should reflect the range of opinion among Conservatives on the subject, don't you think?[[User:Mpauline|Mpauline]] 17:12, 11 February 2010 (EST)

:You completely mistake what I believe. We do agree that presenting the facts is important, however. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:03, 11 February 2010 (EST)

==Past speculation==
Article is locked, but this could be included in this section: “The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot..”
“Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers. . . all point to a radical change in climate conditions and . . . unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone . . . Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones . . . while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” - Washington Post, Nov. 2, '''1922''', based upon a report from the National Weather Review. [http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/] [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 23:06, 3 March 2010 (EST)

== NASA Antarctic warming map ==

The first picture a reader sees in this article is [[Composite antarctic NASA.jpg]], a map showing Antarctica with colors indicating temperature changes. The page where the image originally was, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36736, shows a scale, in which even pale red represents a (slight) increase in temperature. The article uses the picture with a caption including the words "Overall, Antarctica shows more cooling than warming, especially in the east, the area to the right". Just from looking at the picture, it's obvious that even the east half is mostly red.

The picture doesn't seem especially relevant to the first section of the article, anyway.

The article might be better off using another picture like [[Las-vegas-snow-storm-12-2008-christmas.jpg]]. It's a lot easier to see that picture's meaning in a quick glance, and we could still use the Antarctica picture lower in the article for another purpose.

I don't believe that man-made global warming is happening either, but this picture isn't the first one I'd choose for an article debunking the overblown claims.
[[User:DouglasL|DouglasL]] 19:20, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== I have not studied the global warming issue, but it is going to be a hard sell in America ==

I have not been following the man made global warming issue in recent weeks (post Climategate) and what the possibly effects could be, but I can tell you that it is going to be a hard sell in America because: America has a down economy that seems will continue to get worse plus Obama's re-election is a long shot (Republican candidates are opposed to supporting the global warming issue), Americans prefer big cars and big houses, America has a strong oil lobby, has public schools which are doing a lousy job of teaching math/science, plus Americans value personal choice more than most nations. I don't see much happening on this issue over the next 5 years in terms of any changes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:Apparently we have 50 months left[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/sep/30/50-months-climate-change]. Can't see it making much difference though. And even if it did in most countries the US and China don't seem very positive. I suppose it is just time to be thankful that we don't live in Kiribati. (unless of course we do, in which case just hope we can emigrate somewhere) [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:35, 1 October 2012 (EDT)

==Beneficial effects of global warming ?==
Why is there a section about beneficial effects of global warming ? Am I the only one who find it odd ?
There is 2 options:
* The most plausible is that global warming is a huge hoax, therefore, there is absolutely no interest to speak about any possible beneficial effects
* The other option is that global warming is real. In this case, the few beneficial effects are completely shadowed by the threat of sea level rise which may threaten millions of human lives.
--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:12, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Those are not the only 2 options. It is possible that global warming is not a hoax, but is also not [[anthropogenic global warming|anthropogenic]]. It is also possible that global warming is real, but its effects will not be nearly as devastating as liberal scientists claim. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:30, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::I agree that these are not the only 2 options but that does not change the point. If global warming is real but not anthropogenic, we are in my 2nd case. If global warming is not as devastating as liberal scientists claim, we are either in the 1st case (if there is not sea level rise, I think we won't notice the difference) or in the 2nd (if we notice the difference, there is a huge probability that sea level will rise).--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:::The two cases I gave are not mutually exclusive. But you probably are correct, that none of the beneficial effects mentioned in the article can occur without severe negative effects as well. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 18:53, 10 January 2012 (EST)
::::I think that having a section to talk about benefits could be useful because (I'm pretty sure) it is true about the lengthened growing season and it also seems likely that less people would die from freezing to death. However, I do agree that it is strange not to include anything about the drawbacks, because that is almost an accepted concept in our current culture; i.e. most people equate global warming with negative effects. I would like to point out that the sea level rise, even according to the liberals, won't happen until at least 100 years from now. I propose that the benefits of global warming section be merged with the Reported effects of Climate Change section, so we can keep it all together. Also, I think the entire Reported effects of Climate Change section is one of those subtle vandalism thingys, usually written by a liberal to make Conservapedia look bad. I didn't want to delete it in case someone was actually trying to be serious. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:50, 2 February 2012 (EST)

Your question sounds like a rhetorical one, i.e., an assertion that warmer weather isn't beneficial. Please write an article section on the benefits and drawback of warmer weather. For example, how does it affect crop growth or human health? Do more or fewer people die in warmer climates than in colder climates. (Why do retirees tend to move south say, from, New York or Boston to Florida? Are they knowledgeable or ignorant about the connection between warmth and longevity?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:44, 31 December 2012 (EST)

:Ed, such an article section would be quite lengthy. While retirees may well move to Florida to find a more salubrious climate, we must also take into account the vastly-increased incidence of certain diseases in tropical climates. Yellow Fever, for example, is all but unheard-of in northerly climates in this day and age, but still kills many people every year in parts of Africa and South America. This is, in large part, because the weather never grows cold enough to kill off the mosquitoes that spread the disease. Given the many factors that would need to be taken into account, I fear that such a section, properly researched, would dwarf the rest of the article. Perhaps a separate article would be more appropriate? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:57, 31 December 2012 (EST)

== Sunspot Activity ==
I want to delete the section on sunspot activity, as it is misguided and certainly wrong. The article is dated and the prediction made by the scientist, Willie Soon, that the Earth would start to cool after 2009 did not come to pass (2010 was the hottest year ever recorded). On 1/30/12, NASA released an article <ref> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-01/nsfc-eeb013012.php </ref> which refutes the claims made by Willie Soon. Of course, I don't want to remove it if some people still think it could be still useful unless every agrees that it should be removed.

Basically, the deal is that Dr. Soon thought sunspots contributed significantly to global temperature. Here are links to NASA's website showing average global temperature <ref> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ </ref> and sunspot activity <ref> http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum/ </ref>. You can see that the two do not correlate, especially in the last couple years. Strikingly, sunspot activity is at the lowest its been in about 100 years, and the global temperature is the highest its been in at least 100 years. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 17:57, 1 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

== Facts ==

I found a good website with some facts about the GW hoax, don't know if it will pass as a good source but deserves a good look...<ref>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html</ref>User:Colesmithsayshi|Colesmithsayshi]] 12:20, 31 December 2012 (EST)
{{reflist}}

Debate: Is space exploration contrary to God's will?

2012-12-31T19:52:53Z

Benp:

As a fan of space exploration, I've been giving this question a lot of thought lately. From a number of perspectives, it seems as if there's strong evidence that man was not meant to explore space.

'''Biblical evidence'''

If we accept the Bible's account as authoritative, it's quite clear that man was not meant to venture into space. Consider the following verses:

Genesis 1:28 establishes the boundaries of man's dominion: it is give to us to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We are NOT given dominion over things beyond the earth.

Psalm 115:6 tells us that "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." A clear distinction is set: Earth has been given to men, but the heavens have not.

In Acts, it's again made clear that God has set boundaries on human habitation, and that those boundaries are confined to this Earth: We are told that He "...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26)

Further, consider the entire story of the Tower of Babel: Man was punished, and punished harshly, for seeking to build a tower that reached to the heavens. Clearly, this was displeasing to God.

And what of Lucifer's initial sin? Isaiah 14 tells us that he was punished for seeking to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the stars of God!

'''Scientific evidence'''

Many Creationists and design advocates have pointed to the way in which natural laws and conditions on Earth are fine-tuned to support life as evidence of divine design. By the same logic, of course, we must take a good hard look at conditions elsewhere in the universe and question what the intent of the designer was there. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of the universe is NOT designed to support human life; in fact, it's fantastically hostile and would be almost instantly lethal to any form of Earthly life.

What can we conclude about God's Will from that fact?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:08, 31 December 2012 (EST)

'''Not sure if there is enough evidence to say it is contrary'''

To my knowledge, the only times the God has explicitly hammered any type of knowledge seeking as sinful, evil, or antithetical to His will, it was when the knowledge seeking was because of the vocation of a sinful act. The Tower Of Babel, which was built by arrogant humans seeking access to Heaven (as if it were a physically accessible realm coexistant to the Earth and the rest of the material universe) was an evil act because of the intent was Man trying to become like God, so they were punished for the arrogant presumption they could pull that off. The actual building of the Tower itself was harmless, as they merely could not complete it when the builders were stricken with a confusion of tongues.

Had the mere act of building the Tower been evil in and of itself, it would have been outright destroyed by God, but only the builders were punished because of their intentions. The structure could have been made for any number of benign purposes and was thus a neutral party in the commission of an evil act, much like a weapon is inherently harmless unless used or abused due to evil, incompetence, or madness.

As applied to exploring space, the same could be said of underwater exploration. We were not meant to live underwater, but God has never issued any law against the exploration of the waters anywhere in Scripture, so if the act itself is not evil and the intent is merely to understand more about the area below the surface of the water (which does not run counter to any of God's laws to my knowledge), then the exploration of space should also be considered harmless as long as the intent is not one to commit evil with that act.

When a man set foot on the Moon, it was merely to prove that Man could put a foot on an extraterrestrial body, not, to my knowledge, done as an attempt to defy any limitation set down by God, so I would consider such an act harmless in a moral sense as long as the intent is not in contravention of His will.

[[User:PatrickMarion|PatrickMarion]] 14:36, 31 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion

Patrick, it's very difficult to say what people's motivations are, and certainly what God's reasoning may be. All we can say for certain about the Tower is that humans attempting to reach heaven was displeasing to God; we cannot say for certain whether it was displeasing to him because they were attempting to reach the spiritual heaven, or whether the physical act of attempting to reach the heavens was offensive in and of itself. Nor can we say whether everyone involved in the space program has a motivation different from those who built the Tower. What we can say is that He found a physical attempt to reach the heavens displeasing--and space travel is a physical attempt to reach the heavens. Taken in and of itself, this might be ambiguous, but when coupled with the other verses I pointed out, and with the fact that space is so exceedingly dangerous that exploring even the tiniest bit of it immediately beyond our own planet is fraught with risk? I think a picture begins to emerge, don't you?

Nor, I think, can you reasonably compare sea exploration, as the sea is part of the dominion explicitly granted to man in the Bible. Man was given dominion over the fish of the sea, and by extension, over the sea. By that same token, those who object that travel by airplane would be objectionable to God are not taking the boundaries of the dominion into account. We are also given dominion over the birds of the air; thus we may conclude that travel through the air, at least as high as birds can fly, is permissible.

Space, however, is not "the air," and no such mandate of dominion is granted with respect to space. As I pointed out above, Psalm 115:6 says that earth belongs to man, but heaven and the heavens (note the repetition there!) are Gods. As for the idea that space exploration is done without the intent to defy God--is defiance of God's strictures morally acceptable if it's done through ignorance? We accept the precept that ignorance of the law is no excuse; is ignorance of God's Law an excuse?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 31 December 2012 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate: Is space exploration contrary to God's will?

2012-12-31T19:47:56Z

Benp:

As a fan of space exploration, I've been giving this question a lot of thought lately. From a number of perspectives, it seems as if there's strong evidence that man was not meant to explore space.

'''Biblical evidence'''

If we accept the Bible's account as authoritative, it's quite clear that man was not meant to venture into space. Consider the following verses:

Genesis 1:28 establishes the boundaries of man's dominion: it is give to us to "have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." We are NOT given dominion over things beyond the earth.

Psalm 115:6 tells us that "The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s: but the earth hath he given to the children of men." A clear distinction is set: Earth has been given to men, but the heavens have not.

In Acts, it's again made clear that God has set boundaries on human habitation, and that those boundaries are confined to this Earth: We are told that He "...hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation" (Acts 17:26)

Further, consider the entire story of the Tower of Babel: Man was punished, and punished harshly, for seeking to build a tower that reached to the heavens. Clearly, this was displeasing to God.

And what of Lucifer's initial sin? Isaiah 14 tells us that he was punished for seeking to ascend into heaven and exalt his throne above the stars of God!

'''Scientific evidence'''

Many Creationists and design advocates have pointed to the way in which natural laws and conditions on Earth are fine-tuned to support life as evidence of divine design. By the same logic, of course, we must take a good hard look at conditions elsewhere in the universe and question what the intent of the designer was there. It goes without saying that the overwhelming majority of the universe is NOT designed to support human life; in fact, it's fantastically hostile and would be almost instantly lethal to any form of Earthly life.

What can we conclude about God's Will from that fact?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:08, 31 December 2012 (EST)

'''Not sure if there is enough evidence to say it is contrary'''

To my knowledge, the only times the God has explicitly hammered any type of knowledge seeking as sinful, evil, or antithetical to His will, it was when the knowledge seeking was because of the vocation of a sinful act. The Tower Of Babel, which was built by arrogant humans seeking access to Heaven (as if it were a physically accessible realm coexistant to the Earth and the rest of the material universe) was an evil act because of the intent was Man trying to become like God, so they were punished for the arrogant presumption they could pull that off. The actual building of the Tower itself was harmless, as they merely could not complete it when the builders were stricken with a confusion of tongues.

Had the mere act of building the Tower been evil in and of itself, it would have been outright destroyed by God, but only the builders were punished because of their intentions. The structure could have been made for any number of benign purposes and was thus a neutral party in the commission of an evil act, much like a weapon is inherently harmless unless used or abused due to evil, incompetence, or madness.

As applied to exploring space, the same could be said of underwater exploration. We were not meant to live underwater, but God has never issued any law against the exploration of the waters anywhere in Scripture, so if the act itself is not evil and the intent is merely to understand more about the area below the surface of the water (which does not run counter to any of God's laws to my knowledge), then the exploration of space should also be considered harmless as long as the intent is not one to commit evil with that act.

When a man set foot on the Moon, it was merely to prove that Man could put a foot on an extraterrestrial body, not, to my knowledge, done as an attempt to defy any limitation set down by God, so I would consider such an act harmless in a moral sense as long as the intent is not in contravention of His will.

[[User:PatrickMarion|PatrickMarion]] 14:36, 31 December 2012 (EST)PatrickMarion

Patrick, it's very difficult to say what people's motivations are, and certainly what God's reasoning may be. All we can say for certain about the Tower is that humans attempting to reach heaven was displeasing to God; we cannot say for certain whether it was displeasing to him because they were attempting to reach the spiritual heaven. Nor can we say whether everyone involved in the space program has a motivation different from those who built the Tower. What we can say is that He found a physical attempt to reach the heavens displeasing--and space travel is a physical attempt to reach the heavens.

Nor, I think, can you reasonably compare sea exploration, as the sea is part of the dominion explicitly granted to man in the Bible. Man was given dominion over the fish of the sea, and by extension, over the sea. By that same token, those who object that travel by airplane would be objectionable to God are not taking the boundaries of the dominion into account. We are also given dominion over the birds of the air; thus we may conclude that travel through the air, at least as high as birds can fly, is permissible.

Space, however, is not "the air," and no such mandate of dominion is granted with respect to space. As I pointed out above, Psalm 115:6 says that earth belongs to man, but heaven and the heavens (note the repetition there!) are Gods. As for the idea that space exploration is done without the intent to defy God--is defiance of God's strictures morally acceptable if it's done through ignorance? We accept the precept that ignorance of the law is no excuse; is ignorance of God's Law an excuse?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:47, 31 December 2012 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate: Is space exploration contrary to God's will?

2012-12-31T18:08:12Z

Benp: Created page with "As a fan of space exploration, I've been giving this question a lot of thought lately. From a number of perspectives, it seems as if there's strong evidence that man was not mea..."

User talk:Benp

2012-09-03T00:16:27Z

Benp: /* Silliness */

Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.

As for "harmless card games," are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were "rare and powerful." --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

How is that the fault of the card game?
Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?
What does Vegas have to do with anything?
-TheHeroExcelsior

:You mentioned poker and blackjack as other "harmless" card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such "harmless" games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

"unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --Benp 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

My counter is this: The article is about Liberal indoctrination, not "things that might cause liberal thinking in select instances." So stick to things that are certain to cause liberal thinking, and please remove conjecture. "Maybe" is not good enough. Where's the stuff on historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, outlawing prayer? These are the things that indoctrinate children into the liberal mindset. And you want to blame a pen and paper game? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

:I take wine at Communion. Is my priest evil for giving it to me? No? And yet you were willing to claim that alcohol causes depravity. Of course, the exact same arguments apply to alcohol as to this game: many people enjoy it responsibly without behaving immorally as a result. Nobody forces people to drink.

:Yet, you're willing to point the finger at alcohol and not at these games (which you personally play and enjoy.) I see a bit of a double standard there.

:I prefer a balanced approach. I would not claim that alcohol causes depravity, but I WOULD acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful, and I would NOT seek to remove that information from an article. Likewise, I have not claimed that D&D is some universal cause of evil and immoral behavior, but I DO acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful. Note that I didn't put the material in this article in the first place; I'm simply objecting to your removing it with no justification.

:Where IS the stuff about historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, and outlawing prayer? That's an excellent question. Why not try to contribute to the article by adding these things, rather than deleting material? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

The Blood of Christ is not alcohol, but I accept your comparison. I agree that some children may not see the difference between game and reality, but I have never met anyone under 14 who played. That is why I concede that my experience cannot be the Final Word on that. Maybe some little kids have played it and gone awry. I will conclude that D&D is only a positive or negative force if used as such. Players have free will in the game, people have free will out here. Our choices dictate our path. I am just worried that we will have to stamp a warning label on everything that might cause liberal thinking. This is my first day as a member of Conservapedia, and it was interesting. Benp, thank you for being a good adversary. You've honed my debate edge. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

==Wow==
I thought I remembered you from somewhere. Were you the guy who did the Dawkins biography? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 12:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

==Sympathies on the front page==
Could we do this? It upsets me to see people trying to score political points from such a tragedy. [[User:PamAyers|PamAyers]] 18:31, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== PZ Myers ==

Hey, thanks. I added a bunch of stuff. I had long intended to do so. I guess I just needed a little kick in the pants. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome. Good call on including the "Don't send these people email" silliness. Posting peoples' email addresses and then claiming that he didn't mean for them to be harassed or emailed is just baldfaced dishonesty on his part; I wonder who he thinks he's fooling? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:50, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== Someone beat me to it ==

Thanks for the head's up anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Hi Ben, thought I would make an account to say I enjoy reading your debates. Guten abend, Deiter.

:Thanks. I disagree with a lot of people here about a lot of things, but I try to be fair about it. Ich bin rechthaberisch, aber aufrichtig. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== We may be arguing the same point to one another. ==

I replied on my talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

== Jcane blocked ==

Thanks for the head's up. Hope you like the block message, too. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

You know, there are a lot of complaints about how unfair the [[liberal deceit]] article is. I wonder if folks like JCane think that this kind of behavior is the way to prove their honesty? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==
Benp, since you have contributed news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]</nowiki> the Guidelines. Make your suggestions <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]</nowiki>. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 09:28, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

==<nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives]]</nowiki>==
Benp, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under <nowiki>[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#Benp|your name]]</nowiki> so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks for posting the news about Bill Melendez's death ==

It's saddening, but appreciated. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

== NewsProject - Wanted pages ==

Since you are a member of the news project, I need your help with wanted pages. We now have over 100 wanted pages and I need you to pick a few to work on this coming week. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:19, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources ==

I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:46, 27 February 2009 (EST)

== Conservative Logic ==
Great job on the replacement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Thanks. If there's going to be an article, it might as well be a good one. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

== request ==

I see you have some interest in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article at Conservapedia. Accordingly, I have a small request. Could you please draft a short version of a biography of Dawkins. Please make it shorter than what is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography I can post your brief biography in the Richard Dawkins article. Please feel free to ask others to participate in the endeavor I am proposing. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

Will do. I may not be able to get to it until a little later this week, as I have work and family-related commitments, but I'll get to it as quickly as possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Hi... ==

You guys do realize you are on your user page, right? :-) --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)

== Extra privileges ==

Thanks for your high-quality edits for over a year. I've just granted you extra privileges of night editing and blocking, which were overdue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:Wow...thank you! I'm honored at the trust, and I'll do my best to live up to it. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:46, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== Thanks, I've got the rest ==

Thanks, Benp. I've got the rest. And watch the Recent Changes for something neat.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:Will do! Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:36, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:You're right--that IS pretty neat. Looks much nicer now! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:43, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::Yeah, it's cool. By the way, I've really enjoyed and learned from your extremely insightful edits here. Thanks for sharing your wisdom and teaching others here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:47, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::Thank you for giving me the opportunity! A merry somewhat-early Christmas to you and yours, since I likely won't be on between now and then. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Merry Christmas to you too, Ben! We'll sorely miss any absences by you, but we'll be constantly improving as best we can. Enjoy this special time of the year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 21 December 2009 (EST)

== Great New Year's Resolution ==

Two Founders a day ... what a great resolution!!! Happy New Year's to you! Godspeed for a good year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:17, 1 January 2010 (EST)

:Don't slack off - I didn't see any red links turn blue on New Year's Eve. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:50, 2 January 2010 (EST)

::Duly kicked. :) That's two for today--thanks for keeping me on the ball! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 2 January 2010 (EST)

== Welcome back! ==

Welcome back, Ben! We missed you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:49, 10 January 2010 (EST)

:Thanks, Andy! Good to be back. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)

== Superb addition ==

Thanks for your superb addition to [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 25 February 2010 (EST)

== Your new essay ==

Just read your essay on liberalism and intelligence. It is a brilliant dissection of the average liberal psyche, well done! [[User:Myrobi|Myrobi]] 17:10, 1 March 2010 (EST)

== Founding Fathers ==

<big>Congratulations....job well-done, Ben!</big> --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:01, 17 June 2010 (EDT)

== Superb block ==

Superb block and reverts, Ben!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:16, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

== Ben ==

Thank you for your kind words concerning reverting those egregious remarks. I greatly appreciate it.--[[User:JamesWilson|JamesWilson]] 12:03, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

== Taking It Elsewhere ==

I still don't understand your distaste for the "long time listener, first time caller". In what way is it different from a non-vote being spurred to vote because of issues that he either wants to support or oppose? The truth is, the sysops set the tone for the site and many new users model their actions after the sysops; this is not always the most productive path. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:20, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:The truth is also that this website gets a very large number of "first time callers" who are parodists and more interested in stirring the pot than in seeing any sort of meaningful resolution. The fact that these "first time callers" tend to show up in waves when there's already discord certainly does nothing to dispel the perception that many of them are here to fan the flames. Now, I'm trying to be nice here and give you and the other "new posters" the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to start blocking people just because I can. On the other hand, contrary to some perceptions, we're neither blind nor stupid. It's almost impossible to work at this site for any length of time and NOT be aware that there's a website dedicated to gossiping about Conservapedia, and that this dispute is currently the sole topic of gossip there.
:Suffice to say that I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but my doubts are significant. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:29, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
::I'm aware of the other site but am not a member. I'm just an interested observer (and now member) who has an opinion. Is that permissible? [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:32, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:::Certainly. You're entitled to your opinion, and you've voiced it. You weren't blocked for that; your opinion wasn't deleted. Now I'm asking you to leave it at that. Common courtesy prohibits the use another user's talk page as a public forum for discussion, regardless of who the user may be. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:38, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

As a much longer-term editor than me, would you ''please'' move the conversation on Andy's talk page to the community portal? It's gone beyond crazy there. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:36, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:Sharon,
:I agree entirely, but I'm not sure it's my place to do so. I've been here for a while, yes, but other than having block rights, I have no more authority than any other user. If it was just new users, I'd be a little less hesitant, but I really don't want to start moving Sysop messages, and they're mixed into the rest of the discussion very thoroughly. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== [[User:Ripu]] ==

Quick thought on this user's blocking. It seems that they made edits to the internet slang article that you took offense to. I'm not entirely sure that this was parody and should have resulted in a block. Their edits seem in line with other examples on the page and could have been confusing. Also, the l33t terms and 9001 are internet slang in certain circles. Just my two-cents. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:42, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

:It's not so much the terms, it's the state-the-glaringly obvious nature of them. ("1" as slang for "one?" "l337" as slang for one thousand, three hundred, thirty-seven?") I didn't make it a particularly long block, but I really feel like he was tweaking our collective noses. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:45, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Granted SkipCatcha ==

Ben, I just gave you SkipCatcha privileges -- which I should have given you a long time ago. Please accept my apologies for just realizing this now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:34, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:No apology needed, Andy. To be honest, it never occurred to me to ask! Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:10, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

==Silliness==

Thanks, Ben. I expect a number of similar graffiti marks in upcoming days. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:09, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

:Unfortunately, I think you may be right. No thanks necessary, Ed; glad to help out. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:16, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms

2012-09-02T17:42:25Z

Benp: /* Welfare */

I hope you don't mind my adding to the essay, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough that even when it was used, "separation of church and state" did NOT imply a limit on religious freedoms of any kind. --[[User:BenP|BenP]] 12:56, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

"What did flags hang on for centuries before that?" Flagstaffs. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent! "Flagstaff" it must have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Theism==

Maybe the reason the term "atheism" was only popularized after theism is because atheism literally means "without theism"? This shouldn't be construed to mean that atheists didn't exist before the 1800s-- after all, there were even atheists in Ancient Greece, like Epicurus, famous for his "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" observation. [[User:STam|STam]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I think Epicurus was more of a deist or agnostic than an atheist. He did admit that gods might exist but they had no influence on the world. However, I would guess there were atheists before the 1800s if the word first appeared in 1587. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:It's a myth that were atheists in ancient times. There may not even be true atheists today. More typically an "atheist" is simply an anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

::Well if Atheist means antichristian then there were atheists long ago, like Saul --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 15:34, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

@ STam and OscarJ: Everything I've read says that the term "atheist" was used purely as an insult until the Enlightenment, and that the first person to positively identify himself as an atheist was the French priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729, for an essay about him, see [http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue40/Onfray40.htm here]).

@ Andy: I agree with you on one point, that since atheism as a philosophical movement began in Enlightenment Europe as a reaction against Christianity, then it would seem to follow that it's anachronistic to apply it backwards to the Greeks. As a general descriptor though, for someone who openly denies the existence of gods, we know full well from Cicero that some of the Ancient Greek philosophers were atheists. Beyond that, I can't figure out what you mean by a "true atheist." There are plenty of self-identifying atheists in the world today, especially in places like Japan where it's not likely an anti-Christian phenomenon. What's your definition of a true atheist, then? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:41, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English words==

This article appears to give the dates when these words first appeared in English. Isn't it possible that words for these concepts already existed in other languages before that? --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:16, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the surprising dates of origin in English are still ... surprising.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English Words==

Fission doesn't just mean nuclear; when a cell splits in two, that's Binary Fission; the word comes from the Latin root meaning 'to split,' the same etymological origin as "fissure". A change should probably be made.

:Thanks for your insight, but I don't see any reason to change the entry. You're simply reinforcing what the entry says: "fission" is not a new concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

::Well, the word is fine but maybe you should change the description. Because fission in the 1600s did ''not'' mean nuclear fission, as the description implies. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Hello==

You're right on the money, Andy: the popularization of "hello" had to do with the telephone. "Hello" sounded better over the telephone than "hullo" or "hallo," and early telephone operators were encouraged to use it as a salutation. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:38, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Biblical==

Almost forgot what I came to the article for in the first place! Would the origin of "Biblical" (1780-1790, according to Random House) qualify for this list? It certainly surprised me! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:40, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

: Yes. Wow, that is surprising! Please add it. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:04, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Bill of rights ==

Actually, Hamilton used this term in ''Federalist'' no. 84 (1788): "The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." And this sentence implies that the term was already in use in debate about the Constitution. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:34, 4 November 2009 (EST)
:"Bill of rights" is also used as a name for the act of the English Parliament of 1689 "Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"; though I haven't been able to determine at what point in time it began to be referred to by this term. (It did not ''officially'' have this title until the Short Titles Act of 1896.) [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:45, 4 November 2009 (EST)

== Welfare ==

Welfare is an interesting word to look at because of the change in meaning over time. While 'welfare' in the sense of 'the good of a person or group' is a very old word, dating back to the 1200's or earlier, 'welfare' in the sense of 'receiving financial aid from the government' appears to be a 20th century change, dating back to 1904 or thereabouts. Thus, those who cite "promote the general welfare" in the Constitution as evidence for how massive government social programs are "Constitutional" are attempting to apply a definition that didn't put in an appearance until over a century after those words were penned. Another example of liberal influence creeping into language over time, perhaps? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:40, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms

2012-09-02T17:40:25Z

Benp: /* Welfare */ new section

I hope you don't mind my adding to the essay, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough that even when it was used, "separation of church and state" did NOT imply a limit on religious freedoms of any kind. --[[User:BenP|BenP]] 12:56, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

"What did flags hang on for centuries before that?" Flagstaffs. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent! "Flagstaff" it must have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Theism==

Maybe the reason the term "atheism" was only popularized after theism is because atheism literally means "without theism"? This shouldn't be construed to mean that atheists didn't exist before the 1800s-- after all, there were even atheists in Ancient Greece, like Epicurus, famous for his "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" observation. [[User:STam|STam]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I think Epicurus was more of a deist or agnostic than an atheist. He did admit that gods might exist but they had no influence on the world. However, I would guess there were atheists before the 1800s if the word first appeared in 1587. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:It's a myth that were atheists in ancient times. There may not even be true atheists today. More typically an "atheist" is simply an anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

::Well if Atheist means antichristian then there were atheists long ago, like Saul --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 15:34, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

@ STam and OscarJ: Everything I've read says that the term "atheist" was used purely as an insult until the Enlightenment, and that the first person to positively identify himself as an atheist was the French priest Jean Meslier (1664-1729, for an essay about him, see [http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue40/Onfray40.htm here]).

@ Andy: I agree with you on one point, that since atheism as a philosophical movement began in Enlightenment Europe as a reaction against Christianity, then it would seem to follow that it's anachronistic to apply it backwards to the Greeks. As a general descriptor though, for someone who openly denies the existence of gods, we know full well from Cicero that some of the Ancient Greek philosophers were atheists. Beyond that, I can't figure out what you mean by a "true atheist." There are plenty of self-identifying atheists in the world today, especially in places like Japan where it's not likely an anti-Christian phenomenon. What's your definition of a true atheist, then? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:41, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English words==

This article appears to give the dates when these words first appeared in English. Isn't it possible that words for these concepts already existed in other languages before that? --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:16, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the surprising dates of origin in English are still ... surprising.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English Words==

Fission doesn't just mean nuclear; when a cell splits in two, that's Binary Fission; the word comes from the Latin root meaning 'to split,' the same etymological origin as "fissure". A change should probably be made.

:Thanks for your insight, but I don't see any reason to change the entry. You're simply reinforcing what the entry says: "fission" is not a new concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

::Well, the word is fine but maybe you should change the description. Because fission in the 1600s did ''not'' mean nuclear fission, as the description implies. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:46, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Hello==

You're right on the money, Andy: the popularization of "hello" had to do with the telephone. "Hello" sounded better over the telephone than "hullo" or "hallo," and early telephone operators were encouraged to use it as a salutation. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:38, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Biblical==

Almost forgot what I came to the article for in the first place! Would the origin of "Biblical" (1780-1790, according to Random House) qualify for this list? It certainly surprised me! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:40, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

: Yes. Wow, that is surprising! Please add it. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:04, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

== Bill of rights ==

Actually, Hamilton used this term in ''Federalist'' no. 84 (1788): "The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." And this sentence implies that the term was already in use in debate about the Constitution. [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:34, 4 November 2009 (EST)
:"Bill of rights" is also used as a name for the act of the English Parliament of 1689 "Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown"; though I haven't been able to determine at what point in time it began to be referred to by this term. (It did not ''officially'' have this title until the Short Titles Act of 1896.) [[User:ChrisFV|ChrisFV]] 14:45, 4 November 2009 (EST)

== Welfare ==

Welfare is an interesting word to look at because of the change in meaning over time. While 'welfare' in the sense of 'the good of a person or group' is a very old word, dating back to the 1200's or earlier, 'welfare' in the sense of 'receiving financial aid from the government' appears to be a 20th century change, dating back to 1904 or thereabouts. Another example of liberal influence creeping into language over time, perhaps? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:40, 2 September 2012 (EDT)

User:Benp

2011-10-06T03:05:59Z

Benp:

{{template:retired}}

==Taking some time off==

Since my userpage mysteriously reverted to a previous version, I guess I need to repost this.

I have been a member of this project, more or less actively, for quite some time now. In that time, there have been numerous changes. I feel that some of these have been good, and others have been detrimental.

I have never taken issue with the notion that certain members of the project have more authority than others. Andy is the founder of the project, as well as the person who graciously provides the site; of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their value and reliability, and their voices should also carry great weight. That is only right and proper.

The problem is that...at this time...I find that I cannot agree with the direction in which one of those voices is leading this project. Many of the articles appearing recently are not of a sort I would care to have a student or child of mine read. Moreover, I feel that entirely too much focus is being placed on attracting the attention and ire of atheists and vandals, rather than producing content valuable to Christians and conservatives.

Again, it is not my place to debate the wisdom of this course of action. However, it is not a course of action I care to support. Thus, I have two options: get with the program or get going. Since I am unwilling to get with this particular program, it's time to get going, at least for now.

I hope to return at some later date; I still think this project has great potential.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to edit here. To my fellow editors, good luck and may God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:03, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User:Benp

2011-10-06T03:03:52Z

Benp: Restoring deleted explanation of retirement.

==Taking some time off==

Since my userpage mysteriously reverted to a previous version, I guess I need to repost this.

I have been a member of this project, more or less actively, for quite some time now. In that time, there have been numerous changes. I feel that some of these have been good, and others have been detrimental.

I have never taken issue with the notion that certain members of the project have more authority than others. Andy is the founder of the project, as well as the person who graciously provides the site; of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their value and reliability, and their voices should also carry great weight. That is only right and proper.

The problem is that...at this time...I find that I cannot agree with the direction in which one of those voices is leading this project. Many of the articles appearing recently are not of a sort I would care to have a student or child of mine read. Moreover, I feel that entirely too much focus is being placed on attracting the attention and ire of atheists and vandals, rather than producing content valuable to Christians and conservatives.

Again, it is not my place to debate the wisdom of this course of action. However, it is not a course of action I care to support. Thus, I have two options: get with the program or get going. Since I am unwilling to get with this particular program, it's time to get going, at least for now.

I hope to return at some later date; I still think this project has great potential.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to edit here. To my fellow editors, good luck and may God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:03, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

User:BenP

2011-09-26T22:27:52Z

Benp:

{{retired}}

==Taking Some Time Off==

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I think it's time for some distance.

I've been working on this project, more or less actively, for quite a while now, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. Some of those changes, I think, are for the good; others aren't.

I have always acknowledged that, while this is a collaborative project, some voices take precedence; that is simply as it should be. Andy is the founder of the project, so of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their dedication and value, and their voices also have substantial weight.

Again, that is as it should be.

However, that leaves me in an awkward position. I find myself in disagreement with the direction chosen by one of those voices. Many of the articles being written recently are not the sort I would want a child or a student of mine reading. To be honest, they make me very uncomfortable, and I'm unsure as to why it's necessary to have so many of them. This comes on top of the recent open acrimony among sysops, which I feel was extremely detrimental to the project as a whole.

However, it is not my place to lecture senior members of the project on what they should or should not write; nor is it my place to lecture them on what they should or should not do.

Therefore, I am faced with a choice: get with the program, or get going. I do not feel that, at this time, I can get with the program, so the only option open to me is to get going, at least for the time being. Perhaps distance will lend perspective, and in a few months I will feel comfortable editing here again. I hope that's the case.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Fellow editors, I wish you the best. God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

User:BenP

2011-09-26T22:19:41Z

Benp:

==Taking Some Time Off==

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I think it's time for some distance.

I've been working on this project, more or less actively, for quite a while now, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. Some of those changes, I think, are for the good; others aren't.

I have always acknowledged that, while this is a collaborative project, some voices take precedence; that is simply as it should be. Andy is the founder of the project, so of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their dedication and value, and their voices also have substantial weight.

Again, that is as it should be.

However, that leaves me in an awkward position. I find myself in disagreement with the direction chosen by one of those voices. Many of the articles being written recently are not the sort I would want a child or a student of mine reading. To be honest, they make me very uncomfortable, and I'm unsure as to why it's necessary to have so many of them. This comes on top of the recent open acrimony among sysops, which I feel was extremely detrimental to the project as a whole.

However, it is not my place to lecture senior members of the project on what they should or should not write; nor is it my place to lecture them on what they should or should not do.

Therefore, I am faced with a choice: get with the program, or get going. I do not feel that, at this time, I can get with the program, so the only option open to me is to get going, at least for the time being. Perhaps distance will lend perspective, and in a few months I will feel comfortable editing here again. I hope that's the case.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Fellow editors, I wish you the best. God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

User:BenP

2011-09-26T22:18:18Z

Benp:

==Taking Some Time Off==

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I think it's time for some distance.

I've been working on this project, more or less actively, for quite a while now, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. Some of those changes, I think, are for the good; others aren't.

I have always acknowledged that, while this is a collaborative project, some voices take precedence; that is simply as it should be. Andy is the founder of the project, so of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their dedication and value, and their voices also have substantial weight.

Again, that is as it should be.

However, that leaves me in an awkward position when I find myself in disagreement with the direction chosen by one of those voices. Many of the articles being written recently are not the sort I would want a child or a student of mine reading. To be honest, they make me very uncomfortable, and I'm unsure as to why it's necessary to have so many of them. This comes on top of the recent open acrimony among sysops, which I feel was extremely detrimental to the project as a whole.

However, it is not my place to lecture senior members of the project on what they should or should not write; nor is it my place to lecture them on what they should or should not do.

Therefore, I am faced with a choice: get with the program, or get going. I do not feel that, at this time, I can get with the program, so the only option open to me is to get going, at least for the time being. Perhaps distance will lend perspective, and in a few months I will feel comfortable editing here again. I hope that's the case.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Fellow editors, I wish you the best. God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

User:BenP

2011-09-26T22:16:45Z

Benp:

'''Taking Some Time Off'''

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I think it's time for some distance.

I've been working on this project, more or less actively, for quite a while now, and in that time there have been a lot of changes. Some of those changes, I think, are for the good; others aren't.

I have always acknowledged that, while this is a collaborative project, some voices take precedence; that is simply as it should be. Andy is the founder of the project, so of course his voice should have the most weight. Likewise, the sysops have demonstrated their dedication and value, and their voices also have substantial weight.

Again, that is as it should be.

However, that leaves me in an awkward position when I find myself in disagreement with the direction chosen by one of those voices. Many of the articles being written recently are not the sort I would want a child or a student of mine reading. To be honest, they make me very uncomfortable, and I'm unsure as to why it's necessary to have so many of them. This comes on top of the recent open acrimony among sysops, which I feel was extremely detrimental to the project as a whole.

However, it is not my place to lecture senior members of the project on what they should or should not write; nor is it my place to lecture them on what they should or should not do.

Therefore, I am faced with a choice: get with the program, or get going. I do not feel that, at this time, I can get with the program, so the only option open to me is to get going, at least for the time being. Perhaps distance will lend perspective, and in a few months I will feel comfortable editing here again. I hope that's the case.

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for the opportunity to contribute. Fellow editors, I wish you the best. God bless.

Respectfully,

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:16, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

Conspiracy theory

2011-09-11T13:20:31Z

Benp: Tweaks for grammar and accuracy; liberals believe anyone skeptical of the theory is in on the conspiracy, not just those who call it a lie.

A '''conspiracy theory''' is a belief that the official report on a major event is inaccurate or blatantly false in order to cover up an unattractive occurrence. Conspiracy theories are usually dismissed by the public as nonsense; however, in rare cases some are later proven to be true. Some of the most notable are:

*If a president of his quality and insight has failed, it must be because his opponents are uniquely evil, coordinated and effective. The problem is not [[Bill Clinton]] or [[Barack Hussein Obama]] but the ruthless Conservative conspiracy against them. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/25/AR2010112502553.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions Washington Post; Liberals resort to conspiracy theories to explain Obama's problems]</ref>
*FDR knowing about the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]] in advance and encouraging it so America could get in the war; that officers ignored evidence that the attack had started.
*Various theories surrounding [[UFO]]s, alien abduction, and governments "covering up" the existence of extraterrestrials. Usually this is associated with supposed [[alien]] sightings at [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico|NM]]
*The theory that the [[Apollo 11]] lunar landing, commanded by Neil Armstrong, on July 20, 1969, was fake. Supporters analyze photographs, and often claim that satellite photographs of [[Area 51]] resemble a movie studio.
*Various [[9/11 conspiracy theories]].
*Various theories regarding [[JFK]]'s assassination.
*The [[George W. Bush]] presidential campaign conspired to rig the election in 2000. See also: [[Bush v. Gore]]
*The [[George W. Bush]] presidential campaign conspired with [[Diebold]] and other [[electronic]] [[voting machine]] manufacturers to rig the election in 2004. (See article: [[Diebold]])
*The so-called "[[Vast right-wing conspiracy theory|vast right-wing conspiracy]]" as described by [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]].
*People (particularly scientists) who are skeptical of [[Global Warming]] are supposedly funded by [[Big Oil]].
*Operation Northwoods is a 1962 plan by the CIA conspiracy to attack its own citizens in order to place blame on Cuba, hence the right to counter-attack aggression.
*The theory that a [[neocon]] [[cabal]] controlled the [[George W. Bush|Bush Administration]] and was responsible for the [[War in Iraq]].
*The idea that all paleontologists are falsifying evidence to make the Earth appear [[Young Earth Creationism|older than 6000 years]]
*The [[Jews]] are [[Anti-Semitism|conspiring to destroy civilization]]. (Very popular theory in [[Europe]] from the [[Middle Ages]] on, seems to have lost a lot of currency outside the [[Middle East]] since the [[Holocaust]].)<ref>[http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/ "ZOG Ate My Brains"]</ref>
*Denial of the Holocaust's existence and/or claims of exaggeration. [[Iran|Iranian]] president [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]] is among this theory's supporters.
*The theory that the Iraq War was started by [[Big Oil]] in order to gain access to cheap [[petroleum]].
*Various theories regarding [[population control]], including a supposed deliberate conspiracy to make foods and the [[environment]] unsafe, legalization of [[abortion]] and [[contraception]] to prevent [[population growth]], and jets spraying toxic "[[chemtrails]]" over rural areas. Usually supporters claim ease of controlling smaller groups of people.
*A "[[New World Order]]" brought about by a one-world government with a global [[currency]]. Usually this is combined with [[premillenialist]] and/or [[dispensationalist]] views of the [[Bible|Biblical]] Book of [[Revelation]]. Implanted [[RFID]] chips, mandated by the [[Antichrist]] and used for financial purposes, are thought to be the "[[Mark of the Beast]]."
*The influence of [[secret societies]], [[fraternal organizations]], and various [[religion|religious groups]]. [[Freemasons]], the [[Illuminati]], the [[United Nations]], the [[Catholic Church]], [[Judaism]], and the Catholic "Society of Jesus" ([[Jesuits]]) are popular targets. Often these groups are accused of being behind so-called "[[shadow government|shadow governments]]." [[FEMA]] has been accused of being a "shadow government" as well.
*Various claims regarding the [[income tax]], including the [[ratification]] process of the [[Sixteenth Amendment]]. The legitimacy of the [[Federal Reserve]] and the [[IRS]] are questioned by these people, and most favor a return to the [[gold standard]].
*A supposed part-human, part-reptile (or part-alien) bloodline with politically- and financially-powerful members. Former British [[soccer]] player [[David Icke]] promotes these theories.<ref>http://www.davidicke.com/</ref>
*People associated with the [[Clinton]]'s wind-up dead, Clinton Body Count conspiracy. <ref>[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Clinton+body+count&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g5 Google Search Clinton Body Count]</ref>
*[[Pat Tillman]] was killed by the government due to his antiwar/Noam Chomsky relationships. <ref>[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]</ref>
*Middle East connection to the [[Oklahoma City Bombing]]. <ref>[http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/04/mcveigh-cited-again-as-reason-for-rightwing-warning-why-not-accomplices-hussain-alhussaini-and-.html MCVEIGH CITED AGAIN AS REASON FOR 'RIGHT-WING' WARNING; Atlas Shrugs, April 16, 2009]</ref>
*[[Sirhan Sirhan]] was complicit with the Arab world, [[RFK | RFK's]] staunch support of [[Israel]] would be the reason for his assassination. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/28/assassin-maintains-remember-shooting-rfk/?test=latestnews?test=faces?test=latestnews Assassin Maintains He Can't Remember Shooting RFK, FoxNews, February 28, 2011]</ref>

==Common elements of Conspiracy Theories==
The target blamed for everything may change, but most destructive conspiracy theories believe the same things:

* The world is divided into 'us' and 'them'. We are "good," and they are "evil."
* Our opponents are evil and subversive... possibly not even human.
* "They" are responsible for our troubles – We are blameless and without fault.
* Time is running out, and we must act immediately to avoid disaster.
<ref>[http://newint.org/features/2004/10/01/conspiracism/ "ZOG Ate My Brains", again]</ref>

Conspiracy theories provide an important element of certainty in a world that seems random and perverse. Believing that a small, evil group controls everything is actually more reassuring to some minds than believing things just happen by random circumstance. Often it can be entertaining, and many [[documentaries]] and TV specials have been produced about conspiracy theories.

== External links ==

*[http://www.rense.com/general44/sevenjewishamericans.htm Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media.]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Conspiracy Theory]]
[[Category:Terms]]

Conservative Dictionary Project (L)

2011-09-04T13:56:56Z

Benp: Slight tweak: acting in this fashion is inherently liberal

:'''[[laissez-faire]]'''
:Date: 1825
:''True Conservative meaning'' - an economy run free from government interference

:'''lamestream media'''
:Date: 2009
:''True Conservative meaning'' - the incompetent mainstream media

:'''lawn'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True Conservative meaning'' - an area of grass in front of one's house

:'''[[Liberal]]'''
:Date: 14th century
:''True Conservative meaning'' - somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies
:''False liberal redefinition'' - someone who supports liberty

:'''[[Living Constitution]]'''
:Date:
:''True Conservative meaning'' - a liberal judge deciding matters based on their personal beliefs, rather than the word of the Constitution
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a Constitution that evolves with society

:''' [[Lord]]'''
: Date: 12th century
: ''True Conservative meaning'' - another name of [[God]]

:'''lunar'''
:Date: 15th century
: ''True Conservative meaning'' - of, or relating to, the [[Moon]]

{{Navbox
|name=Conservative Dictionary Project
|basestyle=font-size: 95%; background-color:LightRed;
|title=[[Conservative Dictionary Project|Conservative Dictionary Project]]

|group1 = '''A-M'''
|list1 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (A)|A]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (B)|B]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (C)|C]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (D)|D]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (E)|E]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (F)|F]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (G)|G]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (H)|H]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (I)|I]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (J)|J]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (K)|K]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (L)|L]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (M)|M]]

|group2 = '''N-Z'''
|list2 = [[Conservative Dictionary Project (N)|N]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (O)|O]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (P)|P]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Q)|Q]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (R)|R]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (S)|S]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (T)|T]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|U]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (V)|V]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (W)|W]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (X)|X]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Y)|Y]] • [[Conservative Dictionary Project (Z)|Z]]
}}

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-09-01T21:43:14Z

Benp:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|''For Martha''
|The Smashing Pumpkins
|Being torn between the anguish of losing a lost one and the joy of knowing you will one day reunite them with in heaven
|
|-
|''Do You Hear the People Sing''
|Claude-Michel Schönberg
|Standing up to government in the name of freedom, from the musical ''Les Miserables''
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIGzzeQjaE ''Dethharmonic'']
|Dethklok
|Anti-tax
|
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Crying-in-the-Chapel-lyrics-Elvis-Presley/E547D833F0BBFADF48256874002B3358 ''Crying In The Chapel'']
|[[Elvis Presley]]
|Pro-marriage
|1
|-
|[http://www.ixlyrics.com/CLIVE-DUNN/GRANDAD.html ''Grandad'']
|Clive Dunn
|UK Number 1 hit, in praise of senior citizens and their values
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|[[Elton John]]
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.cowboylyrics.com/lyrics/jones-george/gods-gonna-get-cha-for-that-6638.html ''God's Gonna Get 'Cha For That'']
|Tammy Wynette & George Jones
|You cannot escape God's gaze, no matter who you are
|25
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|[[Merle Haggard]]
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/o-z2D9lo9-8 ''Bush Was Right'']
|The Right Brothers
|Celebrating the Bush Administration's success and policies.
|
|-
|[http://youtu.be/BvPugOWeZiA ''Let It Be'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|Very popular in Russia under the Soviets
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-

|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/cMfrLFirGWc ''Chapel of Love'']
|Dixie Cups
|Marriage in a church
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|[[Lee Greenwood]]
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem'']
|William Blake / Sir Hubert Parry
|Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|[[Taylor Swift]]
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/zapGC2PrWiU ''Fair Exchange''] and [http://youtu.be/cnijc9wNpV4 ''Sparks of the Tempest'']
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/OtZ5YsvREi4 ''In America'']
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/C68J1tJM6vU ''Unborn Child'']
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bHpw6CzprNY ''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'']
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-SCHLAFLY IM HATE WHAT YOU REPRESENT, YOU NEED TO STAY MORE TRUE TO GODS BIBLE, AS A GOD FEARING MAN IM ASHAMED OF YOU!!!! BEGONE! LEAVE THIS WORLD FOUL DEMON! I BANISH YOU!!!!!! YOU ARE A SCOURGE UPON THIS EARTH AND SO IS YOUR MOTHER AND YOU"RE NOT EVEN THAT GOOD LOOKING! AND BESIDES, I READ ON ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE SITE THAT YOU'RE SECRETLY A COMMUNIST!!!!
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/p6q9nBusrq8 ''That Smell'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|A patriotic response to the Sept. 11 attacks
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/iq10bz3PxyY ''Christmas Shoes'']
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|[http://youtu.be/RCqxq6xqoXI ''Sin City'']
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|[http://youtu.be/v9BtLRWbkmA ''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)'']
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Ke-r2K0ymWc ''Lightning Crashes'']
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|[[The Bee Gees]]
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|[[Justin Bieber]]
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|[http://youtu.be/fHvf20Y6eoM ''Turn, Turn, Turn'']
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/5Jxnt-QY-j4 ''Game of Love'']
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|-
|''Patriotism''
|Company Flow
|While containing bad language it endorses the US as a super-power
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypkv0HeUvTc ''The Beautiful People'']
|Marilyn Manson
|Despite foul language, it endorses free thought and individuality while criticizing liberal hypocrisy and fascism.
|29
|-
|''Tribute''
|Tenacious D
|Comedy single, but it's also a very popular song about overcoming Satan and alludes to many other Christian themes such as heaven and hell.
|4
|-
|-
|''Country Trash''
|Johnny Cash
|In a comedic way, the song praises the small town conservative virtues of the people looked down upon by big city liberals as "Country trash"
|
|-
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== Debatable Whether Conservative ==

The top five in a poll of the greatest songs in the 20th century, according to the Recording Industry Association of America and the [[NEA]]:

*''Over the Rainbow'' (Judy Garland)
*''White Christmas'' (Bing Crosby)
*''This Land Is Your Land'' (Woody Guthrie)
*''Respect'' (Aretha Franklin)
*''American Pie'' (Don McLean)

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]
[[category:Music]]

Liberal

2011-08-27T19:55:34Z

Benp: Reverting vandalism

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|[[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]] despite the fact that the [[John Maynard Keynes and pederasty|pedophile]] [[John Maynard Keynes]] was incompetent and a fraud.<ref>
*[http://centurean2.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/fabian-john-maynard-keynes-the-stealthy-enemy-of-human-freedom/ John Maynard Keynes the stealthy enemy of human freedom]
*[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-02-22/deathbed-of-keynesian-economics-will-be-in-u-k-matthew-lynn.html Deathbed of Keynesian Economics will be in the UK]
*[http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/show/23102.html Will the G8 Repudiate the Philosophy of Living Beyond Our Means?]
*[http://www.keynesatharvard.org/book/KeynesatHarvard-ch09.html KEYNES AT HARVARD Economic Deception as a Political Credo BY ZYGMUND DOBBS]
*[http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2008/01/keyness-jew-boy-quickie/220620/ John Maynard Keynes - the pedophile, The Atlantic]
</ref> ]]
A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons though some may practice [[Cafeteria Christianity]]. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<ref>As one liberal website candidly observes, "Obama is a shallow narcissist, not a believer in any cause higher than himself. Every American president has had a healthy ego, but none has ever been as purely motivated by vanity as the childishly self-loving [[Barack Obama]]."[http://www.opednews.com/articles/Barack-Obama-s-ego-driven-by-Christopher-Calder-091210-804.html]</ref> Liberalism began as a movement for individual liberties, but today is increasingly [[statist]] and, as in Europe, [[socialist]]ic. Liberalism has changed over the years and degenerated into corruption.

For example, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are almost in bed with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the re-election campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Polling data over several decades has consistently shown more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal, by a ratio of 2-1.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices:

* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events
* Support for [[gun control]]
* Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation
* Government-rationed medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]]
* Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Tax and spend]]
* Trying to impede the freedoms of others
* Implementation of [[affirmative action]]
* [[Political correctness]], the opposition of [[free speech]]
* Support of [[labor union]]s
* Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from sex.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the death penalty
[[File:Johnwaynegacyrosalynncarter.jpg|right|300px|thumbnail|[[Serial killer]] [[John Wayne Gacy]] was a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with First Lady [[Rosalynn Carter]] in 1978. In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, John Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref>]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref>
* [[Disarmament treaties]]
* [[Globalism]]
* Opposition to the [[Bible]] and God.
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that [[Theory of evolution and liberalism|liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution]]. The theory of [[evolution]] is a key component of [[atheistic]] ideologies in the [[Western World]].
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Barack Obama]]).
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]].
* Withholds support to our armed forces fighting overseas to protect their freedoms.
* Promote arrogance through what they consider superior lifestyles.
* Tolerance of wrongheaded ideas and lifestyles.
* Supports financially irresponsible policies.
* Following policies which are proven to be incorrect.
* Do not support a free-market economy and support regulation of business.
* "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."<ref> [http://www.city-journal.org/2009/bc0605bt.html Dupes by Bruce S. Thornton], City Journal - 5 June 2009</ref>
* Support of leftist ideologies such as [[socialism]] and nazism
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]].

According to current dictionaries and their own beliefs, a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>. In practice, however, liberals are often the most intolerant of people, and frequently are on the side of disorder, chaos, anarchy, and lawbreaking. According to Webster's Unabridged Dictionary - and matched by current observation - liberals are "unchecked by a sense of the decorous, the fitting, or the polite...lacking significant moral restraints" or "... an emancipation from convention, tradition, or dogma that extends from a belief in altering institutions to fit altering conditions to a preference for lawlessness."<ref>''Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged'', Volume II; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Chicago, 1986. (pg. 1303, column 1)</ref>

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] liberals give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ==
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] and the article exposed the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his charitable giving]].

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in North America Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: ''SIN''. Liberals (1) '''S'''hift the subject, they (2) '''I'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''N'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "''mixed''" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]

{{cquote|'''There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Infamous liberals ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

*[[Joseph Stalin]] was an [[atheism|atheist]], [[communism|communist]], and [[evolution|evolutionist]] dictator who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Mao Tse Tung]] - atheist and communist dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations ==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Decennial Census Improvement Act of 1991

2011-08-26T14:52:37Z

Benp: Undo revision 905498 by Rachela (talk)

The '''Decennial Census Improvement Act''' was passed in 1991 to "address growing concerns about undercount in the census". The Act "instructed the Secretary of Commerce to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (Academy) to study the means by which the government could achieve the most accurate population count possible."<ref>Doc v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1999)</ref>

"The Act also permits any person aggrieved by the plan to use statistical sampling in the decennial census to bring a legal action and requires that any action brought under the Act be heard by a three-judge district court. It further provides for review by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States." <ref>Doc v. United States House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1999)</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Census]]

Hockey Stick Hoax

2011-08-26T14:52:18Z

Benp: Undo revision 905499 by Rachela (talk)

The '''Hockey Stick Hoax'''<ref>"The Hockey Stick Hoax should be a scandal as big as the discovery of the [[Piltdown Man]] Hoax."[http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html Civilization Watch - March 4, 2007 - All in a Good Cause] - The Ornery American</ref> was perpetrated by [[Michael Mann]] in the form of a fraudulent<ref>"The hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics,"[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925431.400] Physicist Richard Mueller, ''Technology Review'', 2004.</ref> reconstruction of the [[Earth]]'s [[atmosphere]] temperature created by [[Michael Mann]] from various proxies such as tree rings, superimposed on the record of thermometer readings from ground-based weather stations. The proxy estimates go back 1,000 years, while the thermometer readings date from 1850. It was used to justify the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]] (AGW), but the fraud was exposed by two Canadian statistics experts. Mann's graph, which was shaped like a [[Ice Hockey|hockey]] stick, portrayed temperatures as steadily declining since medieval times and then sharply rising in the last century and a half. Notably, his reconstruction fueled claims that 1998 and following years had the highest temperatures in 1,000 years.

==Deceit==
Michael Mann's hockey stick chart was obviously false. Because of its deceitful appearance, many scientists protested Mann's graph and the data behind it. However, Mann initially refused to reveal any of his data or methods - even though his work was supported by the U.S. government - which made it exceedingly difficult for other scientists to replicate his work.

*In the case of the Mann et al [1998,1999] study, used for the IPCC's 'hockey stick' graph, Mann was initially unable to remember where the data was located, then provided inaccurate data, then provided a new version of the data which was inconsistent with previously published material, etc. The ''National Post'' has recently reported on my experience as this unfolded.<ref>http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66</ref>

Eventually, McIntyre and McKitrick learned enough about Mann's data and methods to discover where he went wrong. But the political climate made it very difficult for the correct information to find a publisher.

==Tree rings==
Eventually, McIntyre and McKitrick learned enough about Mann's data and methods to discover where he went wrong. But the political climate made it very difficult for the correct information to find a publisher.

The [[United Nations|UN]] climate panel ([[IPCC]]) decided to stop using the traditionally accepted proxy estimates, which had shown a distinct (and naturally caused) [[Medieval Warm Period]] followed by a [[Little Ice Age]]. Without giving any reason for this change, they elevated recent PhD grantee [[Michael Mann]] (based at the highly liberal [[University of Massachusetts - Amherst]]) to a lead author of one of their assessments.

{{Climategate scandal}}
==References==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Peer review]]

[[category:meteorology]]
[[Category:Deceit]]

Vercingetorix

2011-08-26T14:51:36Z

Benp: Undo revision 905484 by Rachela (talk)

'''Vercingetorix''' was a [[Gaul|Gallic]] chieftain and military leader. He frequently revolted against the [[Roman Empire]] under [[Julius Caesar]].

[[Category:Ancient History]]

Liberal Fables

2011-08-24T17:02:39Z

Benp:

A great many of the "facts" people accept without question aren't facts at all. At best, they're gross oversimplifications that ignore context and nuance; at worst, they're outright fabrications. Liberals seem particularly prone towards uncritically accepting such fables.

Liberal fables are subtly different from liberal falsehoods. While liberals will frequently lie to promote their goals, liberal fables are falsehoods that they actually believe are factual. Thus, they represent a case of profound self-deception.

Among the most commonly-promulgated liberal fables are:

1. '''There's a universal scientific consensus that supports liberal beliefs.''' Liberals constantly invoke the "scientific consensus" on issues ranging from evolution to climate change to education. In actuality, scientists in any field tend to hold a plethora of different views, and there are many scientists who disagree with the liberal orthodoxy on such issues.

2. '''Conservatives are ignorant and credulous.''' In truth, studies have found that liberals and independents tend towards lower knowledge of current events and politics. According to one study, "Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least." <ref>http://people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/</ref> Other studies have reached similar conclusions.

3. '''Liberalism brought about great strides in civil rights.''' In truth, the driving forces behind the civil rights movement were conservative and Christian. Many of the key figures, including Martin Luther King, were ministers.

==References==
<references/>

Liberal Fables

2011-08-24T16:19:04Z

Benp:

Liberal Fables

2011-08-24T16:17:40Z

Benp: A start--needs to be substantially expanded.

A great many of the "facts" people accept without question aren't facts at all. At best, they're gross oversimplifications that ignore context and nuance; at worst, they're outright fabrications. Liberals seem particularly prone towards uncritically accepting such fables. Among the most commonly-promulgated liberal fables are:

1. '''There's a universal scientific consensus that supports liberal beliefs.''' Liberals constantly invoke the "scientific consensus" on issues ranging from evolution to climate change to education. In actuality, scientists in any field tend to hold a plethora of different views, and there are many scientists who disagree with the liberal orthodoxy on such issues.

2. '''Conservatives are ignorant and credulous.''' In truth, studies have found that liberals and independents tend towards lower knowledge of current events and politics. According to one study, "Republicans and Democrats are equally likely to be represented in the high-knowledge group. But significantly fewer Republicans (26%) than Democrats (31%) fall into the third of the public that knows the least." <ref>http://people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions/</ref> Other studies have reached similar conclusions.

User talk:Benp

2011-08-21T22:10:16Z

Benp: /* Granted SkipCatcha */

Talk:Question evolution! campaign

2011-08-21T19:39:58Z

Benp: /* What's wrong with public education? */

[[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]]
== One Question for Creationists ==

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
:God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
:Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
:::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

== UK Contact details ==

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== What's wrong with public education? ==

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?

::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.

::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
{{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.

::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
{{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

:::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.

:::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

:::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T18:26:19Z

Benp: /* Citations */

See [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] for a focused discussion on the letter that was actually sent to PNAS. The discussion below is broader.
----
Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I count at least four distinct diagnostic methods used in the paper for distinguishing whether clones are Cit+. One in particular they describe as being very sensitive to weakly citrate-using cells. It's not that I 'think' Blount et al. claim they started with Cit- cells. They say that in the 'Supporting information' document.

::Andy, for tonight, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to answer your own question of how one might test a clone to be sure that is was Cit-. Use the paper if you'd like or present another means. Tomorrow evening I'll cite the methods Blount used in the paper.

::Meanwhile, here's another question to ponder: If the colonies used to start the 'replay' cultures were Cit+ at the start, why is it that no Cit+ cells were found in such cultures before 750 generations? These cultures were all started from single clones which must have either had the Cit+ phenotype or not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

-
How did Lenski obtain Cit- clones from later populations after Cit+ had become the dominant phenotype? It's pretty standard procedure. First, keep in mind that these populations contained a minority of Cit- cells. Now, a small liquid growth is made from the frozen glycerol stock of cells from a given generation, say 32,000. This is grown to an appropriate OD and then plated on a standard rich media agar plate. Provided that the plated sample isn't too dense, this plating will deposit somewhere between 15-100 individual cells on the agar, with plenty of spacing between them. The plate is then incubated at 37 C for a given time, during which the individual cells replicate to form small, visible colonies. These colonies will consist solely of cells that are genetically identical to the original cell deposited on the agar. This is all well and good, but how do you find which of the colonies are Cit-? Here you use a technique called replica plating. The agar plate is gently inverted onto a sterile swatch of velvet so that some of the cells from each colony are deposited onto the fabric. Next, a citrate-only agar plate is pressed against the velvet, transferring cells from the fabric to the new plate in exactly the same spacial orientation as the first plate. The cells are then allowed to grow on the citrate-only plate. When we then compare the two plates, we look for colonies on the rich plate that did not grown on the citrate-only plate. These colonies will be Cit-, and can be used for the replay experiments. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:Just a correction: The Cit+ cells didn't dominate the cultures at generations 32,000 & 32,500. Cit+ mutants represented 12% and 19% of the population at these times points, respectively. Replica plating is definitely one means of identifying Cit- and Cit+ clones but because the Cit+ cells represented a fraction of the total, it is simple enough to streak the samples to individual colonies (founded by single cells) and test each colony individually. Otherwise, a nice description of replica plating (a technique developed by Joshua Lederberg that allowed him do the research for which he was awarded one of the 1958 Nobel Prizes in Medicine)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oops, you're right, Argon. Cit+ wasn't dominant at generation 32,000, so replica plating might not be the best option. Still, in the case of almost 20% Cit+, I think replica plating might be labor reducing. I'm a biochemist by training, not a microbiologist, but I'm sure there are other methods that could be used. For example, Christensen's agar appears to provide a sensitive, colorimetric method of identifying even weakly citrate-utilizing colonies, so one might be able to plate cells on a Christensen's agar plate and pick uncolored colonies. Again though, I'm no microbiologist so I don't know the best method. However, there are ways to easily pick Cit- clones from later generations in this case. That said, I think that this specific "flaw" cited in Lenski's paper should be removed from the main article. Clearly, Cit+ were not used in the replays from later generations, so Conservapedia's objection is totally baseless.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 19:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::All appropriate descriptions. For generating estimates of the population distribution (Cit-/Cit+) in a culture, replica plating would certainly be applicable. The main point is that identifying and isolating Cit- clones from the generations used in the experiment is straightforward. I agree that it would be a mistake to keep that objection in the article (actually that thread runs across several points in the article).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit+ variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit+ variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of the construction of my expression plasmid. I might mention that I cloned my gene into a particular vector, but there wouldn't a discussion of how I did my PCR, restriction digests, or transformations. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::***** *****
:::::Actually the methods cited in the paper would separate the Cit+ lines from the Cit-. They took single colonies (founded by single cells), and tested them on selective agar (minimal citrate media - MC agar) and an indicator medium, Christensen's citrate agar (Product information from Sigma here: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/sigma/datasheet/c7595dat.pdf). As Gerlach notes from the Blount paper, Christensen's citrate agar is very sensitive to citrate utilization. Typical ''E. coli'' strains do not produce a color change but other citrate-using enterics like ''S. typhimurium'' and Cit+ ''E. coli'' mutants appear pink/red on the plates.

:::::This conclusion is further validated (as I mention above), by the fact that Cit+ mutants did not appear immediately in the replay experiments (Others have also noted this). For example, in replay set-1, it took 750 generations before the first Cit+ mutants were isolated. Many didn't produce Cit+ cells after 3700 generations. If the starting line was Cit+, *all* the cells in the culture would have show up as Cit+ in the first pass.

:::::Overall, it is abundantly clear that the cell lines used in the replay experiments were not Cit+ at the beginning.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:44, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::I don't follow. Are you suggesting that Lenski doesn't understand the proper application of the statistical methods used in his paper? If so, I haven't seen a description of which alternate methods you'd employ, let alone any output from such an analysis. Here's a thought: Why don't you substantiate your claims by writing up the work and submitting it as a correction letter to PNAS?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Argon, if you really "don't follow," then try harder. You insist on credentials by others who criticize Lenski, and yet you do not insist on expertise by Lenski in statistics with respect to his "analysis". Perhaps Lenski should first take and try to pass "Statistics 101" before trying to use a website by its name to draw flawed conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Do you really think that Lenski went to statistics101.net to learn about statistics and how to apply them? That simply is not the case. The Lenski group knew that they needed to do a Monte Carlo resampling analysis on the results of their replay experiments. In this situation, they are faced with two choices: either code an appropriate program themselves, or utilize one that has already been developed and is readily available to researchers. Since statistics101 had such a program available, they chose the latter option. Statistics101.net was simply the source of the program that the Lenski group used to perform the statistical analysis. If you want to argue against that choice, then you need to examine the source code for the statistics101 package and enumerate why it should not have been used.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::***** *****
::::I don't insist on credentials per se. I *recommend* developing a working understanding of the experiments or a willingness to do the necessary background research to get the details straight before heading off on possibly the wrong direction. It saves a lot of thrashing about. It's perfectly OK to raise questions but before leveling accusations it might be nice to do that privately and discuss that with others who can provide useful feedback. Just my 2 cents.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:48, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: By now Lenski has probably seen the flaws identified on the content page here. What's "proper" is for him to correct his own paper in PNAS. The criticism will likely continue as long as he declines to do so. If anyone here would like to educate the PNAS editors about the flaws, then please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll be glad to submit these items to PNAS on behalf of Conservapedia using the "Letters" forum described by Stitch75 above. Should I cite you the author of this analysis, and is there an email you'd prefer me to include instead of my personal one for any PNAS response? I'll put up a draft of the Letters submission here for your approval before sending anything out. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:39, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::It would have a very strange scientific taste should somebody else that Mr. Schlafly be the first author of the letter (however, if you insist on that, i suggest "personal communications" as the right kind of citing the work here.). It is his turn to stand up to his claims in this way (by publishing it into a Forum which he is not the owner of). I personally share the doubts of many here about his argumentation (and his understanding os the experiments), but i am sure only more of his dismissive comments will follow. However i see that he comes up with a clear alternate Hypothesis (contamination), so he is free to show that this is more likely (calculations please) and peform Monte-Carlo simulations on it (for a person complaining that statistics101 is to simple that should be no difficult task). As far as i understood and see the data Lenski and coworkers did the best to exclude this Hypothesis, however i did not run own simulations (And I won't do it, because i think nothing will come out - furthermore Mr. Schlaflys personal style in the communication "you have to try harder" is not the style i am used to be adressed by people whose qualification in a subject is appearlingly nor more than mine). So running the simulation, evaluating his own hypothesis using a valid statistical method is now Mr. Schlaflys job - if he come up with a decent calculation showing this Hypothesis is more likely, the letter would for sure be accepted and Lenksi would have to react. If Mr. Schlafly is not the first author of the letter he could evade the critics after that by saying that he was misunderstood, which means somebody else take the risk of submitting the letter, but in case of success Mr. Schlafly would take the glory. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:10, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::I would prefer that Mr. Schlafly submit his objections to PNAS directly as well, but since he has declined to do so the next best response is to submit it "on behalf of Conservapedia", which he has authorized above. I'll post the draft letter tomorrow, and it will credit him as the author unless I'm asked to include other individuals who contributed to the analysis. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I hope ASchlafly does offer a rebuttal of Lenski's flawed "study." However, if he does not, I am all for DinsdaleP's suggestion. I look forward to reading your draft. If you take all the objections that Conservapedians have raised to Lenski's paper, I do not see how PNAS can possibly object.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:28, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::They could object because Conservapedia's criticisms are obviously false. If this page hasn't made that clear, I don't know what could.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::They would have to prove that Conservapedia's criticisms are false, and they cannot do that. You sound like a Lenski supporter. You need to open your mind to the truth.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 13:59, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::Gerlach, the most obvious lesson from this page is how a few, yourself included, seem determined to defend a flawed paper no matter what the truth brings. You have free will to reject whatever you want, but you're only hurting yourself by that approach. People who do open their minds are amazed by the insights and happiness it brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::This is such a strange response, Andy. The attitude that you and several of your defenders seem to have is that the criticisms you have made of Lenski's paper cannot be rebutted. However, the fact that you ''can'' level criticism at something doesn't make that criticism true. That is, you may be wrong. And that is the case here. Myself and others have pointed out that your alleged flaws in Lenski's paper are incorrect, and based on misunderstanding it, or, even worse, simply not reading it carefully. There has been little to no substantive response to our detailed rebuttals. Replies from you or other defenders of the Conservapedia article amount to little more than brazen declarations that we are wrong or "nonresponsive", and that criticisms in the original article remain unscathed. But for people who claim to have "the truth" on their side, this is simply baffling. If the veracity of your claims against Lenski's paper is so obvious, then it should be an easy task to provide in depth responses to the points that we have been raising against your article. I'm not above criticizing scientific papers. Bad papers get published frequently, after all. However, Lenski's paper does not appear to be one of those. Notice, though, that I am not claiming it to be perfect, no paper is. That said, whatever flaws the paper may have, those presented in the Conservapedia article are not among them. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:43, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Gerlach, now you seem to admit that the Lenski paper may be flawed, but that Conservapedia has not identified any of those flaws! With all due respect, you seem to have taken closemindedness to new heights.

:::::::::: Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: First, we need to clarify what we mean by "flaw". Are we talking about serious methodological flaws or errors in interpretation that fatally undermine the paper's conclusion? If so, I fail to see any such flaws. Of course, any honest scientist recognizes that any work at the frontier of science has the potential to be wrong. It ''may'' be that future work shows Lenski to be wrong. But let's not confuse this possibility with actuality: saying that something might be wrong is not the same as saying that it is. On the other hand, by "flaw" we may mean minor experimental details that could have been better. In this case, the paper is flawed, and Lenski himself admits this in the supporting information. But ''every'' paper is flawed in this manner, and I doubt you'll find any investigator who wouldn't say that they wish they had done some things differently during the course of their research. As an example of what I'm talking about, the Lenski group's statistical analysis would have been improved if they could have accounted for the evolution of increased cell size (and, therefore, decreased cell density) in later generations. As it stands, their analysis ''underestimates'' the potentiation effect in these generations because replays of later generations involved fewer cells. But this flaw, and other flaws of this type, do not undermine the conclusion of the paper.

:::::::::: Regarding the mutation rate argument, see the earlier discussion on this page. The third experiment was significantly different than the first two. The experimental scheme was different, it was performed at at different time and with different conditions, and utilized, for the most part, different clones than the first two. And Lenski doesn't just claim there is a mutation rate in potentiated cells, he ''actually measures it''. But frankly, I don't understand your argumentation here. It seems that you are trying to suggest that all the Cit+ mutants isolated were the result of contamination. This clearly isn't the case, for several reasons. However, this isn't the place for this particular discussion, as there is already such a discussion elsewhere on this page. I still haven't seen any adequate response to our points against the Conservapedia article, and I don't think I am closed-minded for expecting such a response. As I said, I'm open to the possibility that the Lenski paper is flawed, but I expect cogent argumentation to support any such flaws. I haven't seen that here.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 15:09, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Gerlach, look at how many words you used to sidestep my simple explanation of a flaw in Lenski's work: "Lenski claims there is a mutation rate, yet his presented data show that the number of mutations do not scale with sample size. His presented data disprove both of his hypotheses." If the third experiment of Lenski's was independently flawed as implied by your response, then that does not help your defense. Note that in Lenski's second experiment the mutations also failed to scale with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:26, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I think there is a misunderstanding. Blount et al. did not say that the absolute mutation rate was constant for the generation of Cit+. After all, they found that variations in culture conditions had some effect. The replay experiment was performed to determine if clones from later cultures were more or less likely to give rise to Cit+ cells than clones from earlier generations. The authors' hypothesis was that a potentiating mutation was required before the Cit+ mutations could arise. If that was the case then clones from later generations would be more likely to produce Cit+ cells. If the Cit+ capability was the result of an extremely rare, single mutation, then any generation of clones would be equally likely to produce Cit+ cell. The hypothesis is that in a particular experiment, the '''relative probability''' of generating a Cit+ mutant would be greater with clones from later generations. '''Absolute mutation rates''' (which appear to be Andy's concern) may be contingent on the growth conditions, which differed between the three replay experiments but '''''within any particular set of conditions''''', one might expect the relationships between Cit+ recovery and the generations from which the starting clones were derived would still hold.

::::::::::::pg 7902 of the paper in the journal:
::::::::::::"According to the rare-mutation hypothesis, Cit+ variants should evolve at the same low rate regardless of the generation of origin of the clone with which a replay started. By contrast, the historical-contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population."

::::::::::::From the abstract:
::::::::::::"The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that ‘‘replayed’’ evolution from different points in that population’s history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 x 10^12 ancestral cells, nor among 9 x 10^12 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, indicating that some potentiating mutation arose by 20,000 generations. This potentiating change increased the mutation rate to Cit+ but did not cause generalized hypermutability."

::::::::::::What the authors found was that the later generations really did produce more Cit+ mutants than you'd expect if the Cit+ mutation was instead randomly distributed (or, as Andy has claimed and not yet retracted, contaminated by Cit+ cells). Yes, the absolute rates didn't scale across the three different conditions but within each experiment it is clear that the Cit+ mutants arose from cells taken at later generations. Yes, there were differences in the absolute rates under different conditions but that doesn't mean the results and conclusions about potentiated clones are wrong.

::::::::::::As for calculations of mutation rates: Blount et al. performed additional fluctuation experiments (journal pg. 7903) in an attempt to estimate the relative effect of the potentiating mutation and to calculate a rough estimate of the mutation rates. Keep in mind, those rates '''''are referenced to growth under the specific conditions used in that particular experiment''''' and were used to provide ballpark estimates for comparison to other classes of known mutations. As for the second experiment not 'scaling' (with the first?), I wouldn't expect that. The first involved clones grown in continuous liquid subcultures and both the total number of generations, cells/generation and growth conditions (e.g. liquid with nutrient replenishment vs. solid agar) are very different.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: I have not "sidestepped" your point, Andy. Your claim is that the number of Cit+ mutants obtained did not scale with sample size in the third experiment. In response, I reiterated what Argon and I have said previously, specifically that there are differences between the third and second experiments that make a straight comparison between the two inappropriate. That said, if anyone is sidestepping the issue, it is you. Argon and I have addressed your objection previously, but your only response has been to stubbornly restate the original claim. If you don't agree with our statements, then you must explicate why. Additionally, I did not say or imply in any way that the third experiment was flawed. I said that it was significantly different from the second, but this is not the same as saying it was flawed. Argon has provided a response to the scaling of the second experiment to the first.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 20:21, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: (removed false and baseless claim by Argon about sponsorship of this site)

==Draft of PNAS Letters Response from Conservapedia==

''Apologies for the delay in following up on this - I've spent the past few days attending to family priorities, and this is my first CP-related priority now that I have time at my PC again.''

''Since the guidelines for submitting PNAS Letters restricts the submissions to 250 words, the following is the draft submission I'd like to send pending Andy Schlafly's approval:''

::'''( Note - The sole copy of the draft has been relocated to [[Letter to PNAS]] so only one copy is tracked and referred to in the submission. Please apply further revisions there, thanks.)'''

''Mr. Schlafly, please let me know if this is acceptable, and apply any revisions as you see fit, thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:38, 21 July 2008 (EDT)''

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Maybe its because English is not my native language. Somehow you seem not to understand what i am saying. I try to rephrase it so that there is no room for misunderstanding: I never can talk about truth, which is a religious thing. I talk about science and observable reality. Primarily i can tell you only what it takes that your thoughts are at least looked at. If rejection happens du to formal reasons (like using unsuitable Formulations, etc) it's not good to draw conclusions on the content or the scientific community. The strong formalism is to save time. And in turn the taxpayers money. I am screening the title of approx. 70 articles per day (10 Minutes), namely everything which come in on the preprint servers on my subject. From approx 70 titles, 10 are interesting enough to read the abstract (6 Minutes), and 2 are interesting enough to look at the summary (4 Minutes) and one in two days in interesting enough to read Section 2 (10 Minues), skipping the introduction, one in a week in interesting enough to print it out and read it (2-4 Hours). Something which does not follow the form end up with beeing thrown out of my rss feed quite quickly. The editors of the journals know that and in a refereed journal such thigs may even be trown out by the editor (and not the referee). Claiming from not getting a response published that "the article is still wrong, no matter what others say, and i am rights anyway" doesnt sound very scientific to me. From everything you have said here, you are unwilling to learn, and you don't expect a response. If you formulate your comment in that way, then skip it. Publishing a letter should stimulate a discussion, if it's not meant to, seen from the style, it will not be accepted. Moreover, according to everything i have seen here, Mr. Schlafly, you seem to have no clue what you are talking about. Please at least consider one time that you could be wrong and try to follow the statistical arguments in the paper - and build up own one on a real calculation (and show the numbers you get). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Stitch75 - you are too far inside the belly of the beast to understand what ASchalfly is talking about. You have probably spent your (young, naive?) life as a scientist, or inside the sciences, and as such you are blinded and cannot think with real, free logic. If you look at ASchlafly's arguments with an open mind, and not the blinkered mentality you seem to want to perpetrate, you'll see he's got many excellent points, and I'm convinced that the PNAS will ask Lenski to retract major conclusions of his obviously flawed study once ASchalfly submits this letter. Try to open your mind more to other ways of thinking and you'll see the truth for what it is. [[User:RobCross|RobCross]] 21:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::Stitch75 just went far out of his way to be helpful and yet you still continue to respond with hostility and a self-righteous attitude. You explicitly stated that now matter what response you get, you won't accept the conclusions of the paper. That is your prerogative, but you are directly stating that their replies, other than a retraction, will be irrelevant and/or wrong, despite the '''many decades''' of combined practical experience of the authors compared with your complete lack of such. So why is it again that you're even bothering? Several contributors to this forum and others related to it on this website have addressed your questions in great detail- repeatedly- and you continue make vague, unspecific accusations. As Stitch75 discussed, something like "table X is wrong because of figure Y" is nonproductive. Furthermore, if you want to have PNAS readers listen to you- your flaws should be real. For instance, even now your fifth "flaw" is that the statistical results of the third experiment are "obscured" and "not defin[ed]... in the traditional way". Well, the p-value for the third experiment is 0.0823. It took me literally four seconds of flipping through the PDF to find it. It's even in a nice table to make it easy to find. How is that obscure? (I might add that considering P<0.05 significant and P=0.0823 not statistically significant is '''completely arbitrary'''. If the observed pattern wasn't at all what was expected, the P value would be roughly around 0.8-1.0 or so. So 0.0823 ''does'' suggest that the underlying idea is correct in '''exactly''' the same way that P=0.05 would. That is a fundamental concept in basic statistics.) The final problem is that your arguments have drifted from your original concern- whether or not a new trait evolved- since only one of your listed "flaws" actually addresses this issue. The others are tangential and relate to interpretation and mechanisms. Even ''if'' 6 of your 7 flaws were so, the core finding of the paper- around which all else is based- would still hold: in earlier generations, there weren't Cit+ E. coli, in later generations, there were. The mathematical analyses and timeline of occurrence don't change this qualitative, directly observable fact.

::::::I do encourage you to refine the letter and submit it to PNAS- I really do- but Stitch75 is very correct in saying that if you submit it in its current shoddy form it will be laughed at and promptly ignored. You would do well to take the advice of people who actually work in the field when it comes to considering how something will be received. Also, your comment about peer review above indicates that your still have not learned anything at all about how it actually works despite the long discussions previously.

::::::As you said, the truth doesn't require admission. But it does require empirical support, which Lenski provided in ample quantities- but you still have yet to provide anything even beginning to resemble scientific rigor. That is why Stitch75 wrote that response- to ''help you'' improve your letter from that condition.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 21:36, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: You have it backwards, "Kallium". Lenski has the burden of providing "scientific rigor," and his paper falls short. In fact, the data presented in the paper tend to ''disprove'' his hypothesis about a mutation rate, as the mutations identified in his paper do not scale in a meaningful way with sample size.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: I honestly don't know how to make this any more clear. Yes, Lenski does have the burden of providing scientific rigor, as any scientist does. I never said otherwise. However, to claim flaws in any study requires that they be presented with equal rigor. This is just rewording the last statement of my previous post. Simply making vague, unspecified and unsubstantiated hand-waving claims won't get you anywhere. Consider an analogous situation in an appeals court: someone doesn't like the decision of a lower court, so they go to a higher level to present their objections. Now, to do this requires legal rigor to the same degree with which the decision was originally made. The defendant would need to address specifics in the decision and explain exactly why they were incorrectly interpreted. If, however, that defendant were to waltz into the higher court and simply read quotes from the decision and say "that's illogical" or "those statements are self-contradictory" or "that's unfair", without going into detail to explain their reasoning and without addressing the previous cases cited in the decision or providing any further legal precedents, they would utterly fail to make their case and likely be chastised by the judge for wasting the court's time. Now replace the court references with their respective scientific analogs and you have exactly what is going on here. That is why both Stitch75 and I have been giving you this advice- to ''help you present your case''. Lastly, you haven't developed your arguments since you first posted them but keep relisting them. You have yet to show in detail how the data disprove the hypothesis (which you also vaguely define), and as others have explained repeatedly, mutation rates are only expected to scale with sample size under identical conditions, which were not used. That's why your letter needs improvement- it simply won't be taken seriously if it shows a flawed understanding of basic experimental biology. You can't pass rigor completely off of your shoulders; you have to make your case or it will get thrown out of court.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 12:12, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::You are correct that the truth does not require acceptance. Kallium is not quite correct in in saying that it requires empirical support. It does not, the truth is the truth is the truth and that’s an end to it. The ''search'' for truth, however, requires certain actions and, in this case, Stitch75’s advice should be welcome. Following Stitch75’s advice will not alter the truth one little bit, but will aid the search for it. According to you the truth is that this was a flawed paper that was published, demonstrating flaws in the peer review process. It gets science nowhere, the public scrutiny of science nowhere and the use of public money nowhere for this simply to ''be'' the truth. The scientific community would need to see your objections in the "correct" format before it would do anything about it.

:::::::::You may say that the scientific community should be doing this already. (We might also question whether the format stipulated by the scientific community really is "correct"). Whether they should or should not is moot: the simple fact is that they aren’t and are unlikely to start anytime soon without a “correctly” prepared objection. Stitch75’s advice is designed to help you prepare the objection “correctly” and, in doing so, aid the search for truth.--[[User:YoungA|YoungA]] 09:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::YoungA, I think we're thinking along the same lines, just using different vocabulary. As you said, reality is what reality is (in that sense of the word "truth"- I changed words to avoid the usual connotation of the vague philosophical ideal, which is itself unproductive). My meaning was the same as yours, referring to "truth" requiring empirical support in the sense that any given claim to it must be backed up by real evidence. But thanks for explaining the situation from a different angle.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While some here are willing to discuss, obviously Mr. Schlafly seems to be not. This will be the last thing i say before i see a calculation by Mr. Schlafly and everything else has been said already. I point out that submitting an Letter to any journal will involve the "editor in chief" exactly if the internal handling process of the journal involves this. So it is arrogant to prescribe the journal who should read the submission. Furthermore i think, that if you send this with a cc to "watchdog" groups, you should read the publication guidelines of PNAS. it might be that it collides with the publication guidelines to publish the contribution somewhere else at the same time. This most likely holds for articles, and maybe for comments/letters as well. To put congressmen on the cc is, in my opinion a waste of taxpayers money. it would be much better to wait until you have something in your hands. Right now you havent. The only rational reason for congressmen in the cc is to hope for an intimidating effect on somebody. Be assured, if you are long enough in science you are not scared easily. If this would be meant to intimidate the editors of PNAS, be assured that- if they have mood- will pin your Letter to their door to have something to laugh. And for new scientist, i can assure you, nothing will happen before the Reaction of PNAS. based on that you can write one more comment on the "New Scientist" article. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:15, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Listen Stitch75- Right now, there are some pretty serious flaws in the Lenski study. Conservapedia has identified enough of them to put the entire conclusion in doubt, and even if one of our arguments turns out to be not valid, I am sure that because we raised so many valid points at least part of the paper will need to be reconsidered. You claim to have so much respect for the scientific process and scientific work, but you contradict this because you yourself refuse to allow a piece of scientific work to be legitimately challenged. If you truly believed that the work was infallible, you wouldn't mind us scrutinizing it. Please stop telling us about how to follow a good scientific method, when as you know the most important part is checking your work. We are contributing to the scientific community by revising a conclusion that is fatally flawed. Try to open your mind a bit more.--[[User:RoyS|RoyS]] 15:26, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

::By using "fatally flawed" in an ''a priori'' fashion, you contradict your own words regarding opening one's mind. Read more carefully- Stitch75 did '''not''' try to keep you from submitting your letter-, but rather tried to help you improve it. It seems you immediately criticize anyone you've decided to disagree with regardless of what they say. As several others here have said, you '''should submit a letter''' but with its current form of poor scholarship and misunderstanding of basic microbiology techniques, it won't be taken seriously. You haven't given it a reason to be. And Stitch75 is right about all the CCs: they serve only to undermine your argument and erode your credibility. Unfortunately, with each revision the letter becomes less and less tactful, thus further reducing the likelihood of it being posted by PNAS. Stitch75 gave that detailed advice because he does have "respect for the scientific process and scientific work"- thus helping you develop your letter in a scientifically acceptable format. Also, if you've already decided that you won't agree with any response other than retraction, there's not much point in the effort because that in itself is not a scientific approach. Through this and already calling it "fatally flawed" before any formal scientific response to those claims, you've already made up your minds. Again, submit a letter, really, but if you want them to take you seriously you should reciprocate in due course and not pass judgment before even sending it.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 15:55, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:::ASchlafly's statement, "''In fact, while the paper states the generation periods for the First (replay) Experiment, it does not disclose the generation periods for the Second and Third Experiments''" demonstrates a surprising lack of comprehension of the procedures described for the second and third replay experiments. There were no generation periods for the second and third experiments, because the bacteria in those experiments were not serially cultured. They were plated once onto MC agar (which contains no glucose) and allowed to sit on those same plates for 59 days (replay 2) or 49 days (replay 3).

:::: If you continue your insulting tone, then you'll join others who have been blocked. If you're claiming that the Second and Third replay Experiments did not have new generations during their 59 and 49 day periods, then please clearly say so. Note that Lenski does not observe when the Cit+ variants were allegedly observed during those periods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

::::The second and third replay experiments did not have 'generations' in the way that the LTEE and the first replay experiment did. Some of the Cit- cells ''may'' have divided once or twice before they ran out of stored glucose, but for the vast majority of the 59 or 49 days they were sitting dormant on the plates until they became Cit+, at which point they started to form colonies. Lenski ''does'' state that Cit+ mutant colonies were noted between 8 and 28 days after plating, and states that control plates that started out with a mix of Cit+ and Cit- cells showed Cit+ colonies after two to three days. Furthermore, the paper points out that when the new Cit+ cells are replated on MC agar, they also form visible colonies after 2 days - so they are not inherently slow-growing. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:22, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Similarly, his statement "''The same reason that the paper admits an inability to "exclude an earlier origin" (p. 7901) for the Cit+ variants also results in an inability to exclude Cit+ variants from the samples taken after generation 31,000''" is also wrong. It is impossible to exclude an earlier origin ''in a population of millions of cells'' because it is impractical to plate all of the cells for each generation out so thinly that each and every cell gives rise to a unique colony which can then be tested for the Cit+ trait. For each generation you would have to run thousands of plates to determine ''exactly'' when the first Cit+ cell arose. Conversely, if you wish to sample only a few hundred or thousand cells, rather than multiple millions, it is straightforward to plate them out at such a great dilution that every cell in the sample gives rise to a unique colony, separated in space from all the others, which can then be tested individually for the traits you wish to identify. Since each colony arises from a single cell in the sample, after generation 31,000 you will have colonies that are entirely Cit+ and those that are entirely Cit-. His claim that "''there is no scientific basis for including these Cit+ populations in this study, and it only serves to distort the results''" is also wrong - there is a basis to include those populations - or to be more specific, the Cit- subset of those populations. At the time the replay experiments were designed, before there was any evidence for a potentiating mutation at 20,000 generations, it was impossible to know which generations were more likely to give rise to the Cit+ trait. Suppose that a potentiating mutation arose at the 25,000th generation and expanded through the population or simply persisted at a low level through the 31,000th generation, ''by which time it was outcompeted by some other mutation, or was lost through drift''. It could have been the case that the Cit+ mutation could ONLY have arisen between, say, the 25,000th and 31,500th generations, with no 'potentiated-but-not-Cit+' cells lasting past the 31,500th generation. As it turns out, it appears that the potentiated cells continue to persist in the Cit- population through the 32,500th generation. If you are trying to determine whether the Cit+ trait is contingent or simply random, it absolutely makes sense to include Cit- cells of later generations.

:::: The alleged potentiating mutation must have occurred prior to the 31,500th generation, and it makes no sense to test subsequent generations for the potentiating mutation. Rather, including later generations only distorts the statistical analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The replay experiments were a test of the hypothesis of evolutionary contingency. The hypothesis would be supported by a pattern of Cit+ mutants that only arise after a certain generation. It would be ''even more'' supported by a pattern of Cit+ mutants that arise after a certain generation and then extinguish after a later generation. If you are going through the trouble of running such a massive experiment, it makes perfect sense to include the later generations. It is entirely possible that the generations past a certain point have no ability to generate Cit+ mutants because the potentiating mutation has vanished from the population. In what way, exactly, does the inclusion of post-31,500 generatins distort the statistical analysis? If the contingency hypothesis were false, the latter generations would be no more likely to form Cit+ mutants than the early generations. If your argument boils down to 'the latter generations may have been contaminated with Cit+ cells', remember that there is evidence that this was not the case.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:22, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::His statement "''The paper incorrectly combined the Third Experiment with the other two based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance''" is meaningless. If ASchlafly objects to the statistical method used, he should recalculate the results using his preferred test and then present both his results and a defense of the alternate statistical method. If you send a letter to PNAS that includes such obvious errors of fact and unsupported conclusions, it will only embarrass ASchlafly and Conservapedia further.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 16:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: You resort to insults when you lack substance. One need not propose an alternative, or a solution, in order to identify a flaw. One may announce that a bridge is defective and should be closed prior to figuring out how it can be fixed, if indeed it can be fixed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::It is quite true that one does not have to be able to repair a bridge in order to declare it defective. One should, however, be able to defend an assertion of defectiveness with actual data. If you want a bridge to be closed, you can't simply assert that the engineers' math was wrong; you have to show why it was wrong. You can't just claim that the concrete was contaminated; you have to prove it. If you went before the city council demanding that a bridge be condemned because the math was wrong and the concrete contaminated, with no support other than your claim, would you expect to be successful? I stand by my statement that "''The paper incorrectly combined the Third Experiment with the other two based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance''" has no mathematical meaning and represents an assertion without support.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:22, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: I agree that you don't really need to use an alternative statistical test ''per se'' to identify an alleged flaw. However, you do need to meet statistics with statistics and use the method that was used in the paper (the Monte Carlo algorithms, preferably with the same software) to show quantitatively where the error was made and what you think the result should have been. The reason I suggest discussing your result is that in most correspondence of this nature in scientific journals, the discussion is usually something like "Well, the authors calculated this result, but we recalculated and got something different. This is why we think that happened." So while I don't think you need to propose an alternative technique, you should discuss what the result should have been (using the data in Table 1) as that is the standard approach to such concerns. To borrow from your analogy, you don't need to figure out how the bridge can be fixed before announcing it is defective, as you said, but announcing defectiveness isn't enough to close it- you must ''show'' that it is. Hope that helps.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:52, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Dear RoyS, my mind is open enough and I listened long enough, and I would appreciate if you would contribute to the discussion instead of accusing me of beeing closed-minded and acting as if we sat in the pub. If the flaws are so obvious, please present your calculations. Lenski presented his, So unless you show that, using a specific method of calculation, you get other numbers, there is not much of an argument. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, here's point 4 in layman's terms: Lenski's hypotheses of a mutation rate imply that a ten-fold increase in sample size should result in a ten-fold increase in mutations. But it doesn't. In fact, a nearly ten-fold increase in sample size results in only a slight increase in mutations in Lenski's data. These data, as presented by Lenski in his paper, suggest (if properly interpreted) that there is no mutation rate at all. Rather, these data are more consistent with occasional contamination, broadly defined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Except that the growth pattern of the Cit+ cells in the third replay experiment demonstrated that there were no Cit+ cells in the cultures at the time of plating. Control plates with a mix of Cit- and Cit+ cells were done which showed rapid development of Cit+ colonies, whereas the experimental plates did not show any Cit+ colonies for at least 8 days and up to 28 days. If you believe that the plates became randomly contaminated during the course of the incubation, rather than at the initial plating, the post-plating contamination should have affected all generations equally, but it did not--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:46, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::Blount et al. discussed the unexpectedly low Cit+ conversion rate for the third replay set in the supplementary document. They have some speculations but don't know why it occurred. They are dealing with low probability events. I don't agree that the 'proper' interpretation is contamination. First, they isolated and tested each Cit+ isolate for the markers and sequences we've discussed on earlier Conservapedia pages. Second, the distribution of Cit+ isolates does not appear to be random: They correlate strongly with the later generations. If undetected contamination was random, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo resampling tests would reject the null hypothesis of the 'rare-mutation' hypothesis over the 'potentiated' hypothesis. As Brossa correctly notes, contamination would have affected all generations. Blount et al. write in the paper's supplement: "To facilitate handling and minimize possible confounding variables, we divided this third experiment into 20 blocks of 14 clones each. All of the clones within a block came from different generations, and the single ancestral clone was included in all 20 blocks."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:01, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::: Good and detailed analyis and conclusion, Argon. I had no time to read everything in that detail, but i think you present exactly the arguments (contant background would favour rare mutation hypothesis) would be exactly the one i had in mind, so let's see how Mr. Schlafly will bend his own Monte-Carlo simulations to showing several 1000 times no mutation into accordance with any reasonable background explaining a significant number of counts in *some* samples --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:20, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: The above comments are non-responsive. The essence of ''both'' of Lenski's hypotheses is that there is a fixed, or stepped, mutation rate. But any such rate would be roughly proportional with sample size. Yet his three experiments prove otherwise, which Lenski fails to address in a satisfactory manner. Indeed, Lenski's presentation of his data disproves the very thing he claims to have shown.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: Mr. Schlafly, please answer: Which the of the two hypotheses is, according to your calculations the most likely? --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 20:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with fewer cells per plate than in the third experiment. That change can affect the survival rates of cells on plates over time (e.g. different rates of nutrient exhaustion). Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Argon, you have free will and it's clear to me that you are going to exercise it to the point of embracing absurdities. This time you claim that "extremely low mutation rates" would not result in mutations that scale with sample size (of course they would), and that density completely alters mutation rate (if that silly claim were true, then Lenski's experiment was flawed from the get-go). Your belief system is remarkable, but it's not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Fair enough, but let's be clear: That's my take on the paper and that of most of the scientists who reviewed the paper, read the paper and commented upon the paper so far. For that matter, Michael Behe didn't call the data flawed, nor did those commentators at Dembski's Uncommon Dissent blog, nor did Dr. Georgia Purdom at Answers in Genesis. In contast, those who think the work is flawed appears to be limited mostly to you, Andy. It is true that 'scaling' was not seen in this case but as we've seen, the conditions were not quite the same and it is known that this can have an impact.

::::::::However, the fact that the conditions were not identical doesn't detract from the fact that the emergence of Cit+ clones *still* correlated with the sampling of the later generations. What this means is that with three separate experiments and under three sets of conditions, the constant-rate-mutation hypothesis doesn't hold. What the differences between the second and third replay experiments demonstrates is that they were run under different conditions that affected the overall rate of conversion, not that the 'potentiated mutation' hypothesis is wrong. Those are actually distinct questions. Andy, the data simply does not support your claims that the cultures were contaminated (we'd expect random distribution), or that the 'scaling' variations ruined the experiment. In my opinion, you seem focused on red herrings to the exclusion of evaluating the data in the overall context of the experiment which demonstrates a correlation of Cit+ clones emerging from samples taken at later generations. Would you care to address that pattern and discuss why your 'contamination hypothesis' doesn't appear to hold up?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 09:29, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::There is nothing absurd in what Argon said. As he mentioned, the third experiment was performed under different conditions and at a different time than the first or second experiments. The key here is that there are plenty of variables, some unknown, that simply aren't controlled for between the experiments. For example, take the fact that it was performed at a different point in time than the first two. The third experiment, then, is almost certainly being performed with different batches of growth media, liquid and solid. Anyone who has spent any significant time growing cells knows that media can vary significantly in growth characteristics between batches, despite the same recipe being used. The reasons for this can be many. Perhaps the balance or pH meter was off calibration one day, or a different bottle of reagent was used. Take an analytical chemistry course, you'll spend plenty of time talking about this. It is true that, for the most part, this sort of variability has minimal impact. But when you're examining something like an extremely rare mutation, or you're trying to make an extremely accurate measurement, intra-lab variability like this can be significant. For an extremely rare mutation like Cit+, which involved at least two additional mutations in potentiated cells, any change in mutation rate can have a significant effect on your ability to obtain mutants. Mutation rate is sensitive to growth conditions, so cells grown in different conditions are likely to experience a different rate of Cit+ mutation.

:::::::Regardless of the reason for the lower-than-expected number of Cit+ mutants in the third experiment, however, the Cit+ mutants isolated absolutely did not arise from contamination. This is clear if you read the paper. You're still left, then, with the two hypotheses presented, and the results support historical contingency.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:Hello Fyezall. I rearranged the position of your question to hopefully keep the conversations clearer. It boils down to this: The researchers found that mutant Cit+ strains arose over the course of time in their long term growth experiment. They wanted to learn something about how that strain acquired this ability. They wondered, 'Was this the result of a single, very low frequency mutation or did some other mutation have to precede it in earlier generations, followed by the final mutation(s) that allowed the cells to grow on citrate?'

:If the Cit+ change required a single mutation with a low but constant probability over time one would expect Cit+ mutations to be distributed across cells taken from any generation of the experiment. On the other hand, if a 'potentiating' mutation had to arise at some point in the cultures before the final Cit+ mutation could function, then one would expect the probability for Cit- cells to mutate to Cit+ cells would increase with samples of cells taken from later cultures.

:Blount ran the experiment and found that Cit+ mutants arose more frequently in cells taken from later generations in the culture. The Monte Carlo resampling tests were used to assess how likely the pattern of results would fit the models. The statistical significance (smaller P-values mean greater significance), was calculated for each experiment and the combination of experiments. The numbers suggest the distribution of mutants was not randomly distributed across the experimental generations, they tended to appear in cells taken from the later generations. This would argue against the single-mutation, constant, low-probability hypothesis. It appears that a pre-adaptive mutation had to have arisen first, followed by the mutation that finally allowed the cells to utilized citrate. Future work in Lenski's lab will focus on trying to identify the various mutations involved. I hope this brief explanation helps.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

==[[Social Text]]==
This well known hoax ''does'' support Aschlalfy's position that the paper was reviewed by PNAC ''rather quickly'', since (apparently) the paper supported the editors/reviewers point of view. Perhaps this would have beeen better placed on the [[Richard Lenski]] page rather than here since this deals only with the 6/10/08 PNAS paper ''per se'' and not the review process. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:45, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:I fail to see the relevance of the Sokal Hoax here. You should also know that Social Text was not a peer-reviewed journal when Sokal submitted his paper. That doesn't excuse the credulity of its editors, but Sokal's paper was not sent out for review. Not to say that it would have mattered, postmodernism is just meaningless word salad.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:39, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== The letter is way too long... ==

from what I understand, PNAS has a 250 word limit on letters. The above proposed letter is too long. [[User:Leonard|Leonard]] 00:04, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Looks like we need to start trimming, then. Intelligent suggestions are welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Science is self-correcting by nature==

Very interesting to see all of this. As a researcher myself, I care very much about the nature of research, research methods, science, and scientific communication. Without spending any time to support or criticize Lenski, I would like to think that some here have noticed that this controversy is potentially no different from critiques of methods and conclusions that have abounded in scientific discourse for many decades, with one significant difference. Usually, methods or conclusions are criticized by other scientists whose own research has shown potential deficiencies in published research. While in some fields, there can be some kind of political or academic/cultural agenda that drives criticisms, such corrections/suggestions are usually purely technical in nature. Like some other contributors to this "talk" page, I have frequently seen letters with corrections or comments about articles or other research reports. Even more satisfying and in the true scientific spirit are subsequent articles or studies (sometimes by the same author who wrote the flawed study) that fill in gaps, correct methodological errors, and generally contribute to the body of knowledge of the given subject. I don't see the latter happening here, though. Science is cumulative. What is the motivation behind the criticism of the Lenski study? Is it by a fellow scientist who cares about methodologies used to investigate this topic? Or by a specialist who is also working in this area and also hopes to advance knowledge? No, it seems rather to be an attempt by non-scientists (who, given the stated philosophy of Conservapedia, likely espouse a belief in Biblical Creationism) to discredit the scientific work of a specialist. This seems to be done, not in order to advance scientific knowledge of evolution (of bacteria in this case), but rather to disprove evolution. If the criticisms have any validity, by all means let them be known; however, I would think that sound scientific complaints would carry more weight coming from a peer (a scientist) in the same field, rather than from Biblical Absolutists, who (correct me if I'm wrong here!) believe in scientific progress and methods only insofar as they do not contradict the Bible. Nevertheless, scientific communication is open to all serious participants and if there are sufficiently sound scientific arguments to legitimately correct or carry forward the findings of Lenski, then by all means let such comments contribute to the evolutionary nature that is science! If the arguments aren't sound, then of course they won't contribute to knowledge of the subject and will not warrant serious discussion anywhere. If this journal (PNAS) is like some others, the editors will provide the criticized author with an opportunity to respond and of course an opportunity (that all researchers have) for the authors of the critique to correct or supplement the work with their own research in a peer-reviewed study of their own on the same topic. I wonder, though, if the editor or editorial board will seriously consider the criticisms if 1) they find them to lack substance or 2) believe that the motivation of the critique is not related to scientific inquiry. If the corrections/criticisms are legit, then why not air out the whole thing in the public PNAS forum? The National Academy of Sciences is one of the most highly-regarded academic institutions in the world and its PNAS, being very highly cited, is extremely visible. I always read the "Letters" and other sections and look forward to see what happens with this. But I do have a question for Aschlafly: are your criticisms of Lenski's work motivated by a sudden scientific interest in the evolution of ''Eschericia coli'' and the communication of accurate research findings to the world or because Lenski's findings collide with a world view that cannot be contradicted (because it is True) and there must therefor be something suspect about it? If the latter is true, then you have a very long road ahead of you that will involve debunking tens of thousands of articles that support evolution. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 19:34, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

: CPlantin, could you make your point in two or three sentences? Honestly, I wish I had time to read all your stuff, but I don't. I can tell you this: motive is not a basis for disqualifying people from searching for the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:39, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Sigh... lack of time to read has gotten us all into trouble now and again, hasn't it? You'd likely agree that neither liberal nor conservative attitudes alone should disqualify people from searching from the truth. I'd agree. In fact, if there IS some kind of motive besides a genuine desire to see E. coli research advance, then why not state it outright and publicly, for instance in the letter to the PNAS? Seek the truth and also be honest and open about your motives! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 20:56, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Lenski's claims seemed incorrect to me. The more I looked at it, the more flaws that I saw. Liberals are awfully conspiracy-minded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:23, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

== "Not in citation given" ==

Now that the distractions are out of the way, I remain curious as to your justification. It seems to me that a thorough reading of the discussion bears out the assertion. Lenski refuses to release raw data and cultures to anyone he doesn't consider qualified. Opinions may vary on whether or not this refusal is justifiable, but the refusal itself is a matter of fact. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:54, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

== Citations ==

Ben,

Could you please clarify why you feel that the citation provided for Lenski's refusal to release his results is insufficient? While he did provide reasons, the fact remains that he did refuse to release the raw data and accompanying cultures to members of the general public. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:01, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

: Hi, Benp. Here's why. In the first citation, Lenski actually said that the data for the primary conclusions are in the paper (which is public), and regarding the secondary conclusions, "We will gladly post those additional data on my website." In fact, further data and details about methods are [http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/06/02/0803151105.DCSupplemental/0803151105SI.pdf here]. He said he wouldn't ship the ''bacteria'' to just anyone, and he quoted a Conservapedia user who said that the bacteria are the real data. Maybe that caused the confusion.

: Regarding the second citation, I thought it was citing a different paper, but now I see that it was citing the Lenski paper. Indeed, as you said in your edit summary, one wouldn't necessarily expect the paper to go over its flaws. So, I was mistaken: no <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> there. However, the sentence wording and placement of the citation are extremely misleading: "the following serious flaws are emerging about his work[2]". This suggests recent and continuing publication of scientific papers critical of Lenski's results, and that the cited paper describes the flaws that follow.

: What do you think? Leave the first <nowiki>{{failed verification}}</nowiki> and reword the sentence to avoid the confusion I fell into?

: —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 11:20, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::Lenski didn't simply acknowledge the Conservapedia user's comments; he affirmed them. "One of your acolytes, Dr. Richard Paley, actually grasped this point. He does not appear to understand the practice and limitations of science, but at least he realizes that we have the bacteria, and that they provide “the real data that we [that’s you and your gang] need” Note that he's acknowledging here that Paley was correct, and that the bacteria DO provide "the real data."
::I agree that a minor reword would be useful on the second sentence, but I remain unconvinced that the first "failed verification" tag is warranted. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:31, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::: Here are a couple more thoughts, then.

::: In ordinary usage, "data" means recorded representations: numerical measurements, written observations, etc., rather than the actual things that the measurements and observations are about. To illustrate: if you asked a solar researcher for his data, you would expect him to send you some records of observations, not the Sun itself. Calling the bacteria themselves "data" strikes me as figurative language to make a point.

::: I understand that Dr. Paley's point was: you can't trust data (in the ordinary sense) from Darwinists, because it will contain misrepresentations and omissions designed to protect their theories from refutation; we should instead demand the bacteria themselves in order to examine them without bias. Lenski didn't affirm that point, of course. He said that Paley understood that you don't have to rely on his recorded observations (data), because the bacteria themselves still exist and can still be observed. Lenski said he would share the bacteria, but only with qualified scientists, not the general public.

::: So, it seems to me extremely misleading to say that Lenski refused to make his data public and to support that claim by citing his letter. I'll leave it to you to correct or clarify the page as you see fit.

::: —[[User:BenKovitz|Ben Kovitz]] 13:43, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I removed the tag, but added a qualifier to indicate that Lenski was willing to release certain data, but didn't fully comply with Mr. Schlafly's request. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:26, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T18:13:39Z

Benp:

Regarding his [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf experiment on historical contingency in evolution], [[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to fully release his bacteria mutation data to the public. An analysis of his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the [[evolution]] of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full 105 PNAS 7899-7906] (June 10, 2008).</ref>, however, reveals serious flaws even without a full disclosure of the data. Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper. Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit+ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit+ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after. The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.

2. Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses. Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

3. Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.<ref>Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref> Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

4. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim.

5. Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance. Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Richard Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

6. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

7. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant": "We also used the Z-transformation method to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one."<ref>Lenski paper at 7902 (citation to Whitlock paper omitted, emphasis added).</ref> Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was ''not'' used. A reader could conclude that the Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

8. Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit+ variant generations. Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance. Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104 Cholera toxin induces malignant glioma cell differentiation]</ref>

9. The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit+ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit+ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.

10. Lenski's paper claims that "During [30,000 generations], each population experienced billions of mutations,<ref>Lenski cites one of his own prior articles for this.</ref> far more than the number of possible point mutations in the [approximately] 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random '''and''' that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.

11. In Table 2 of [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf], the expected mean should be 26,382 generations, not 28,382.

12. The p-value computed for experiment two was incorrectly listed as 0.0007 instead of 0.0006 in [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf]. These p-values are meaningless because the paper used a flawed test statistic (see: [[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments#Test Statistics]]). However, the error illustrates the need to use enough random realizations when using Monte Carlo methods to estimate p-values.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Letter to PNAS]]
*[[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments]]
[[Category:Science]]

Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T15:32:54Z

Benp: Minor reword to avoid confusion

Regarding his [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf experiment on historical contingency in evolution], [[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to release his bacteria mutation data to the public,<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>{{failed verification}}. An analysis of his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the [[evolution]] of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full 105 PNAS 7899-7906] (June 10, 2008).</ref>, however, reveals serious flaws even without a full disclosure of the data. Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper. Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit+ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit+ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after. The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.

2. Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses. Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

3. Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.<ref>Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref> Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

4. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim.

5. Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance. Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Richard Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

6. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

7. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant": "We also used the Z-transformation method to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one."<ref>Lenski paper at 7902 (citation to Whitlock paper omitted, emphasis added).</ref> Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was ''not'' used. A reader could conclude that the Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

8. Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit+ variant generations. Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance. Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104 Cholera toxin induces malignant glioma cell differentiation]</ref>

9. The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit+ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit+ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.

10. Lenski's paper claims that "During [30,000 generations], each population experienced billions of mutations,<ref>Lenski cites one of his own prior articles for this.</ref> far more than the number of possible point mutations in the [approximately] 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random '''and''' that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.

11. In Table 2 of [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf], the expected mean should be 26,382 generations, not 28,382.

12. The p-value computed for experiment two was incorrectly listed as 0.0007 instead of 0.0006 in [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf]. These p-values are meaningless because the paper used a flawed test statistic (see: [[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments#Test Statistics]]). However, the error illustrates the need to use enough random realizations when using Monte Carlo methods to estimate p-values.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Letter to PNAS]]
*[[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments]]
[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T15:31:53Z

Benp:

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T14:54:54Z

Benp: /* "Not in citation given" */ new section

Insect

2011-08-21T14:48:53Z

Benp: Undo revision 904064 by Michaels (talk)

'''Insects''' are [[arthropod]]s with six legs and a body consisting of three sections: the [[head]], [[thorax]], and [[abdomen]]. They have an exoskeleton composed of [[chitin]], and segmented [[eye]]s. Many, but not all, insect species are [[wing]]ed.

There are an enormous number of insect [[species]] on earth, including [[fly|flies]], [[beetle]]s, and [[ant]]s. Some are notably mentioned in the [[sacred text]]s of some [[religion]]s, such as [[locust]]s, in the Egyptian plagues, and rules regarding their consumption in the following Scripture passages:

<blockquote>Leviticus 11:20-23 (KJV): All fowls that creep, going upon [all] four, [shall be] an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; [Even] these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all [other] flying creeping things, which have four feet, [shall be] an abomination unto you.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Deuteronomy 14:19 (KJV): And every creeping thing that flieth [is] unclean unto you: they shall not be eaten.</blockquote>

Many insects undergo [[complete metamorphosis]], meaning that their life cycle involves several stages, during each of which the creature has a distinctly different appearance. These are:

*[[Egg]]
*[[Larva]] - a feeding stage. Some insect larvae are very familiar, such as caterpillars and maggots.
*[[Pupa]] - a dormant stage during which the next form develops inside a protective casing - the butterfly chrysalis being the most familiar example.
*[[Adult]] - the form we recognize as the "insect", with its defining characteristics as listed above.

Other insects undergo [[incomplete metamorphosis]], in which the egg hatches into a [[nymph (biology)|nymph]], which resembles a small adult (except without wings).

[[Category:Insects| ]]

American History Homework Three Answers - Student 32

2011-08-21T14:46:26Z

Benp: Undo revision 904061 by Michaels (talk)

My apologies for the late submission. I always write out my homework ahead of time, and due to shared internet times I'll submit it the day of class. However yesterday (Thursday) I was entirely out of it (spawning such brilliance as 'monopulated') and forgot to submit my homework. Either way, here it is:

: No problem!

Joe B

American History Homework Three

1. One weakness of the Articles of Confederation would be that concerning foreign policy. The federal government was so physically impaired as a result of the Articles that it could not maintain its own borders, nor uphold the provisions of its own treaties (as it could not impose such provisions upon the states effectively). Another weakness of the Articles of Confederation was its financial inability. There were no federal taxes, and the federal government could not force the states to contribute to the upkeep of central government.

: Not "would be", but "was". Good analysis otherwise.

2. Article I of the Constitution establishes Congress and the powers of Congress. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch and the powers thereof. Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court.

: Good, but could add what those powers can do.

3. George Washington’s patriotism, or commitment to the country, was perhaps his most admirable characteristic. Though he was not a skilled tactician, or a brilliant diplomat, he still managed to win independence for the colonies (thereby becoming the United States) and protect that independence during the formative years of the Constitution. His commitment to the American people was further displayed through his willingness to step aside when the nation no longer needed him. Though he could have probably obtained anything he asked of the American people, and could indeed have served in command until his very death, he felt that American independence had been far too dearly bought to be placed subservient to his own ambition.

: Excellent!

4. The most important invention of the 1790s was Eli Whitney’s cotton gin, which enabled the increased production of cotton (as one machine could do the work of 50 men) in the South. Due to this the South became even more of an economic powerhouse, and in fact became the biggest producer of cotton in the world.

: Good.

5. The political cartoon looks as though it depicts the ratification of the United States Constitution. The title reads “Federal Superstructure” and the pillars of this superstructure, each in representation of one of the states who has achieved ratification, are the foundation upon which the whole is built. Another interesting clue is that the sixth state to ratify the Constitution, Massachusetts, is depicted as being the sixth pillar being put into position by what would seem to be heavenly means. All the states being in order of ratification, and Massachusetts being the one currently put into its place in the Federal Superstructure, the cartoon seems to specifically reference Massachusetts’s ratification of the Constitution, or at least the anticipation thereof. The argument at the time this was most likely drawn was whether or not the Constitution should be ratified by the states; the Federalists thought it should, whereas the Anti-Federalists believed that it should not. Due to the cartoon’s heavenly involvement in aligning Massachusetts with the other ratifying states it is most likely that the cartoon was written from the perspective of a Federalist.

: Superb analysis. Don't need an 's after Massachusetts.

6. The most important achievement of the Articles of Confederation was the establishment of the Northwest Ordinance in 1787. One significant achievement of the Northwest Ordinance was that it set a precedent for the creation of new states, with a specific process on how they were to be developed as territories and eventually admitted to the Union as states. A second significant achievement of the Northwest Ordinance was its protection of individual rights, such as religious freedom, which foreshadowed the later adoption of such individual rights as a part of the Bill of Rights.

: Excellent.

7. The most significant part of the John Adams presidency was the signing into law of the Alien and Sedition Acts and the reaction of the states to the acts. The Alien Act gave the Executive Branch the authority to deport immigrants, and the Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the federal government (that is in spirit, the actual legislation was a bit more drawn out and less to the point). The opposing party, the Democratic-Republican Party, and the leaders of the party (Jefferson and Madison) saw this as being directed specifically at them and drafted state resolutions to nullify the acts as unconstitutional. This set a precedent for the Southern states to later attempt to nullify federal laws and secede from the Union.

: Superb.

: Well done. In fact, perfect: 70/70.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:American History Homework Three Answers]]

Homework Two Answers - Student Six

2011-08-21T14:45:59Z

Benp: Undo revision 904060 by Michaels (talk)

'''1. Two important trials or series of trials occurred in the colonies between 1690 and 1750. What where they, and why were they significant?'''

The first were the Salem Witch Trials, which were significant because the legal system became more strict and efficient afterwards. The second was the Zenger Trial. It was significant because the right of freedom of the press was formed, and the Jury was given the ability to ignore the law and side with the defendant by saying he is not guilty.

:Terrific answer, which may become a model answer.

'''2. What do you think were the two biggest causes of the Revolutionary War, and why?'''

Over the course of a few years, the many different laws (acts) that were created gradually upset and angered the colonists, which eventually led up to the Revolutionary War. In my opinion, this was the biggest cause. Another reason being that the British were apparently quite stubborn, and the colonists were simply getting tired of being pushed around by them.

:Well said. But note that the British were far more powerful, and "colonies" are stepchildren of the mother country, so I'm not sure the term "stubborn" is the right word. Perhaps "tyrannical" is a better description.

'''3. Look at the map of the American colonies in the lecture. Which northeastern state was not one of the original 13 colonies, and what significant event happened there?'''

Vermont was not one of the original colonies, and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga by the "Green Mountain Boys" was the significant event.

:Perfect answer!

'''4. The "Tea Party" today takes its name from which event? Explain how that event connects to the views of the Tea Party Movement today.'''

The Tea Party takes its name from the Boston Tea Party, which happened in 1773 when a group of colonists rebelled against Britain and threw 350 chests of tea off into the Boston Harbor. This event and the Tea Party Movement today are both opposed to taxation and believe there should be less government spending.

:Superb and succinct answer.

'''5. Explain and discuss the Great Awakening, and its effect in uniting the colonies.'''

The Great Awakening was a huge spiritual revival that happened in the early to mid 1700s. It united the colonists together in their practices and beliefs, and brought them together as one body through Christ.

:Terrific, and your answer is the first in the class to mention the time period for the Great Awakening.

'''6. Describe several of the laws passed by Britain during the time period leading up to the Revolutionary War, and their effect on the colonies.'''

One of the laws was the Sugar Act, which caused all sugar to be taxed. It also stopped imports of rum. This act took place shortly after the Salutary Neglect ended, and the colonists didn't want to pay extra money on simple things like sugar. There was also the Stamp Act, the Proclamation Line (which stopped colonists from settling any farther west than the Appalachians), as well as the Quartering Act. The colonists slowly grew more and more irritated with these new laws, and began protesting against the King. These acts had various effects on different colonists. Some were bound by unity [The Sons of Liberty], and some were just simply outraged.

:The effect was ''negative'' on all the colonists, of course, so I would word this phrase differently: "These acts had various effects on different colonists." perhaps "These Acts caused a various forms of opposition." But the substance of your answer is excellent.

Elise F.

:Grade: 60/60. The first perfect homework this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 19 February 2011 (EST)

Per curiam

2011-08-21T14:45:38Z

Benp: Undo revision 904059 by Michaels (talk)

'''Per curiam''' means issued by the [[court]], particularly when all appellate judges join a single ''unsigned'' opinion rather than individually ''signed'' opinions.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Thessaloniki

2011-08-21T14:45:16Z

Benp: Undo revision 904058 by Michaels (talk)

'''Thessaloniki''' is the second largest city in [[Greece]].

[[Category:Greek Cities]]

Constants

2011-08-21T14:44:52Z

Benp: Undo revision 904057 by Michaels (talk)

1 atm = 101.1 kPa

1.000 calorie = 4.184 Joules

1 Calorie = 1000 calories

760 torr = 1 atm

760 mm Hg = 1 atm

== ==

Atomic mass unit: 1.00 amu = 1.67 x <math>10^{-27}</math>kg

[[Avogadro's number]]: 6.02 x <math>10^{23}</math> particles/mole

Planck's constant: 6.23 x <math>10^{-34} \frac{Joules}{Hertz}</math>

R = 0.0821 <math>\frac{L \cdot atm}{mole \cdot K}</math> or 8.314 <math>\frac{J}{mole \cdot K}</math>

Standard Temperature and Pressure (STP): temperature = 273 K and pressure = 1.00 atm

== ==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+ Bond Strengths
|-
! !! Mass !! Charge
|-
| '''Proton''' || 1.67 x <math>10^-27 </math> kg || +1
|-
| '''Neutron''' || 1.67 x <math>10^-27 </math> kg || 0
|-
| '''Electron''' || 9.11 x <math>10^-31 </math> kg|| -1
|-
|}
[[category:physics]]
[[category:chemistry]]

Liberal gossip

2011-08-21T14:44:28Z

Benp: Undo revision 904056 by Michaels (talk)

'''Liberal gossip''' is the trait whereby liberals care more about gossipy facts than about genuine issues.

==Examples of Liberal Gossip==
*[[Wikipedia]], which obsesses with guilt by association, to the point of being called the "National Enquirer of the internet".<ref>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1924058/posts</ref>
*Liberals' reaction to Alaskan governor [[Sarah Palin]]'s selection as [[John McCain]]'s running mate, obsessing over trivial details of her family rather than her strong conservative policy message.
*Spreading false and destructive rumours about prominent [[conservative]] figures, such as [[Rush Limbaugh]], [[John Schlafly]],[[Sean Hannity]] and [[Charlie Crist]].

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{liberalism}}

Pioneer anomaly

2011-08-21T14:43:21Z

Benp: Undo revision 904055 by Michaels (talk)

[[File:Dn11304-1 600.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Trajectories of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft. (The Pioneer anomaly is much too small to be noticeable at this scale.)]]
The '''Pioneer anomaly''' refers to deviations from projected courses for several spacecraft sent to the outer solar system. The data sent back from both Pioneer spacecraft, Galileo, and Ulysses, represent one of the first meaningful tests of the precision of gravitation predictions over long distances. The spacecraft have deviated from the courses which scientists predicted using [[general relativity]], as well as [[Law of Universal Gravitation|Newtonian mechanics]], indicating that both theories may be fundamentally flawed.

==Discovery==
[[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] were space probes sent to study the planets [[Jupiter]] and [[Saturn]]. After following a [[hyperbolic]] trajectory around these planets, they had reached [[escape velocity]] for the solar system and were flying out. While their main mission was now ended, NASA stayed in radio contact with the craft to study the outskirts of the solar system<ref name="Nieto">Michael Martin Nieto and John D Anderson. "[http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0264-9381/22/24/008 Using Early Data to Illuminate the Pioneer Anomaly]". ''Classical and Quantum Gravity'', 2005</ref>.

Around the time of Pioneer 11's flyby of Saturn, it was found to be slightly off-course. (Every spacecraft sent to the outer solar system is intended to follow a specific course, predicted by the theory of [[general relativity]]. Radio transmissions and radar are used to track spacecraft to ensure that they stay on course.) While this in itself was within the range of error, astronomers continued tracking the craft to find that the anomalous sunward acceleration increased. Currently, [[Pioneer 10]] and [[Pioneer 11]] are respectively over 30 and 70 [[Astronomical Unit|AU]] from the sun, the farthest any spacecraft has gone in near-free-fall. By using [[Doppler effect|Doppler radar]], scientists have found that the courses for both the Pioneer spacecraft show a constant acceleration towards the sun of <math>8.74 \times 10^{-10} \frac{m}{s^2} \ </math> beyond theoretical preditions.<ref name="Nieto" />

Although the [[Galileo Project|Galileo]] and Ulysses spacecraft showed some unexpected sunward acceleration, other unpredictable factors, such as the [[Yarkovsky effect]] and the thrust caused by radioactive material onboard, prohibit any accurate measurement of the effect on these two spacecraft. The confounding effects are even more significant on the Voyager spacecraft, preventing even a discussion of whether the Pioneer Anomaly affects these craft at all.

The Pioneer anomaly is about 1000 times bigger than the two effects contributing to the difference between the acceleration predicted by general relativity and that predicted by classical (Newtonian) gravity. The effect of the increase in inertia due to the Lorentz transform is less than <math>10^{-12} \frac{m}{s^2} \ </math>, and the difference in acceleration due to the Schwarzschild metric is also less than <math>10^{-12} \frac{m}{s^2} \ </math>.

==Explanations==
Originally, scientists supposed that the Pioneer navigation code was in error. However, the code was verified by an independent team. After a rigorous search for all possible effects, the anomaly was determined to be real: the course actually does diverge from models.<ref name="Nieto" />

Several possible explanations, some flawed, have been proposed for this effect:

In 2010, [[Creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. D. Russell Humphreys wrote regarding his explanation for the Pioneer anomaly:
{{cquote|The only non-standard assumption I used was that the matter of the cosmos is limited in extent, with a fair amount of empty space beyond the matter—an assumption supported by the [[Bible]]. With those relatively modest beginnings, I was able to explain the Pioneer anomaly — it’s due to a change in the ‘fabric’ of space. In fact, this anomaly could be the first local manifestation we have observed of the expansion of the cosmos, and the first evidence that expansion is occurring in the present, not just the past.

The assumption I used violently contradicts the foundational assumption of the [[Big Bang theory|big bang]], which says the universe has no centre and no edge. In that model, the fabric of space would not change. Consequently, the big bang model has been unable to explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.<ref>[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly]</ref>}}

Other explanations offered:

* The anomalous acceleration could be due to the spacecraft venting energy in certain directions.<ref>http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2008/04/13/pioneer-spacecraft-a-step-closer-to-being-boring/</ref> However, such effects would be expected to be more significant earlier on, when the power sources were less degraded.<ref name="Nieto" /> The opposite was actually the case.
* Drag forces from space dust, analogous to air resistance, could be slowing the spacecraft down. While the average concentration of interplanetary dust is not high enough to produce the observed acceleration, the Pioneer spacecraft could conceivably have picked up an electric charge which could be attracting dust.<ref>William F. Hall. "[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2007.01.006 Can charge drag explain the Pioneer anomaly?]" ''Physics Letters B'', 1 March 2007</ref>
* The theory of [[General Relativity]] and the [[Law of Universal Gravitation]] could be wrong; the gravitational force could be slightly stronger than predicted. In this context, it is important to note that other spacecraft flying in hyperbolic trajectories around celestial bodies have also experienced anomalous gravitational effects.
* There could be gravitational forces from other celestial bodies that have not been taken into account.
* A March 2011 paper claims that the anomaly is caused by heat radiation.[http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26589/]

== External links ==
*[http://creation.com/pioneer-anomaly Pioneer anomaly] by [[Creation Ministries International]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Relativity}}

Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2011-08-21T14:04:54Z

Benp: One wouldn't expect the actual paper to expound on its own flaws; the citation is provided so that readers can check the flaws described in this article for themselves.

[[Richard Lenski]] rejected a request to release his bacteria mutation data to the public,<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].</ref>{{failed verification}} but the following serious flaws are emerging about his work<ref>Blount et al., "Historical contingency and the [[evolution]] of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli'', [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full 105 PNAS 7899-7906] (June 10, 2008).</ref> even without a full disclosure of the data. Note that the peer review on Lenski's paper took somewhere between 0 (non-existent) and at most 14 days (including administrative time), and Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101".

1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented in the Third Experiment in Table 1 of his paper. Figure 3 proposes a step-up in mutation rate to Cit+ due to a historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurring at about the 31,000th generation, yet the Third (and largest) Experiment in Table 1 shows Cit+ arising just as often before the 31,000th generation as after. The abstract, in further contradiction with Figure 3, suggests that the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) occurred prior to the 20,000th generation.

2. Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses. Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

3. Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the ''E. coli'' already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.<ref>Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations 31,500, 32,000 and 32,500.</ref> Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Lenski's hypothesis.

4. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim.

5. Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance. Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Richard Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.

6. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants.

7. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. Lenski's paper applied the Whitlock Z-transformation incorrectly, perhaps intentionally so, in making a claim that Lenski's results were "extremely significant": "We also used the Z-transformation method to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one."<ref>Lenski paper at 7902 (citation to Whitlock paper omitted, emphasis added).</ref> Lenski's "whether or not" refers to two incorrect applications of the Whitlock technique, obscuring how the straightforward, correct weighting based on sample size was ''not'' used. A reader could conclude that the Lenski paper deliberately conceals the misapplication.

8. Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit+ variant generations. Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance. Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104 Cholera toxin induces malignant glioma cell differentiation]</ref>

9. The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit+ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit+ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.

10. Lenski's paper claims that "During [30,000 generations], each population experienced billions of mutations,<ref>Lenski cites one of his own prior articles for this.</ref> far more than the number of possible point mutations in the [approximately] 4.6-million-bp genome. This ratio implies, to a first approximation, that each population tried every typical one-step mutation many times." Lenski's conclusion is nonsensical because it assumes that the mutations are completely random '''and''' that each mutation has a roughly equal probability.

11. In Table 2 of [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf], the expected mean should be 26,382 generations, not 28,382.

12. The p-value computed for experiment two was incorrectly listed as 0.0007 instead of 0.0006 in [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full.pdf]. These p-values are meaningless because the paper used a flawed test statistic (see: [[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments#Test Statistics]]). However, the error illustrates the need to use enough random realizations when using Monte Carlo methods to estimate p-values.

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Letter to PNAS]]
*[[Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments]]
[[Category:Science]]

User talk:BenKovitz

2011-08-21T14:01:16Z

Benp: Created page with "Ben, Could you please clarify why you feel that the citation provided for Lenski's refusal to release his results is insufficient? While he did provide reasons, the fact remain..."

Ben,

Could you please clarify why you feel that the citation provided for Lenski's refusal to release his results is insufficient? While he did provide reasons, the fact remains that he did refuse to release the raw data and accompanying cultures to members of the general public. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:01, 21 August 2011 (EDT)

Curiosity

2011-08-18T14:39:24Z

Benp: Undo revision 902785 by Fontecedro (talk)

'''Curiosity''' is a [[Discovery Channel]] show which addresses fundamantal questions in science and philosophy. Its publicity campaign implies that it intends to take an objective approach, but whether it includes any religious perspective remains to be seen. The show highlights the views of a popular physicist who believes God to be unnecessary to the universe. [http://www.urbanchristiannews.com/ucn/2011/08/stephen-hawking-takes-on-god-creation-and-religion-on-discovery-channels-curiosity.html]

Brian Lowry of ''Variety'' wrote:
* As a scientist, Hawking concludes, it's completely valid to question "whether we need a God to explain the universe at all," proceeding to methodically lay out the case for the Big Bang Theory (and what could create something out of nothingness) and natural laws that don't require a spiritual component. [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117945762]
[[Category:Television Programs]]

Antispasmodic

2011-08-18T14:38:50Z

Benp: Undo revision 902786 by Fontecedro (talk)

An '''antispasmodic''' (synonym: spasmolytic) is a drug or an herb that suppresses muscle spasms.<ref>[http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/antispasmodic Medical Dictionary: Antispasmodic]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Drugs]]

Baden-Baden

2011-08-18T14:38:23Z

Benp: Undo revision 902787 by Fontecedro (talk)

'''Baden-Baden''' is a city in the [[German]] state of [[Baden-Wuerttemberg|Baden-Württemberg]]. The city became fashionable in the Nineteenth Century as a spa resort due to the apparent beneficial effects of the spring waters there. It is also notable for being the location of the annual Baden-Baden Rendez-Vous, a meeting of reinsurance representatives who gather to discuss the renewal season.
When Germany was occupied after [[World War II]], the city became the headquarters for the French zone.
<ref>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/access/874732202.html?dids=874732202:874732202&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Jan+06%2C+1947&author=&pub=Hartford+Courant&desc=French+Make+Reich+Zone+Pay+Own+Way&pqatl=google</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Germany]]
[[Category:Cities]]

Richard Nixon

2011-08-18T14:37:53Z

Benp: Undo revision 902788 by Fontecedro (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Richard Nixon
|image=Nixon 30-0316a.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Thelma Catherine "Pat" Ryan
|religion=[[Quaker]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=37th
|terms=January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974
|vp=[[Spiro Agnew]] [[Gerald Ford]]
|preceded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Gerald Ford]]
}}
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=36th
|terms=January 20, 1953 – January 20, 1961
|president=[[Dwight Eisenhower]]
|preceded=[[Alben W. Barkley]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Lyndon Johnson]]
}}
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=California
|terms=December 4, 1950 – January 1, 1953
|preceded=[[Sheridan Downey]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Thomas Kuchel]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=California
|district=12th
|terms=January 3, 1947 – December 1, 1950
|preceded=Jerry Voorhis
|former=y
|succeeded=Patrick J. Hillings
}}
}}
'''Richard Milhous Nixon''' was the 37th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1969 to 1974. He was the only U. S. Republican President to resign the office. He also served as the 36th [[Vice President of the United States]] of America under President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] from 1953 to 1961.

In 1946, he was elected as a [[U.S. Representative]]. As a Congressman from [[California]], and as a member of the [[House Committee on Un-American Activities]], he investigated Communists and instigated the successful prosecution of [[Alger Hiss]] for spying for the Soviet Union during [[World War II]].

After two terms in the House, he was elected to the U.S. Senate in November of 1950.

After losing his first presidential race to [[John F. Kennedy]] by a narrow margin in 1960, he unsuccessfully ran for Governor of California in 1962, losing to incumbent Edmund G Brown.

In 1968 he was elected president, and was reelected in 1972 by a landslide, but resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974 due to a threat of impeachment by Congress for the [[Watergate Affair]]. The main impeachment charge was that Nixon obstructed justice by telling employees to mislead FBI investigators about the Watergate burglary.

==Early Life==
Richard Milhous Nixon was born in [[Yorba Linda, California]], on January 9, 1913. Soon after, his family moved to Whittier, California. Nixon's childhood years were not unusual for someone growing up in two small towns near Los Angeles. His parents, Frank and Hannah Nixon, were devout [[Quakers]]. Nixon had four siblings and saw two of his brothers die from [[tuberculosis]]. Nixon grew up relatively poor, as his father earned a modest income from his gas station and grocery store. But due to these hard times, he established a quality of determination and strong work ethic. A good student and a hard worker, Nixon excelled scholastically at both Whittier High School and Whittier College.

Nixon attended Fullerton High School and Whittier High School. He graduated second in his class from Whittier with honor in the study of [[Shakespeare]] and [[Latin]]. He was awarded scholarships to [[Harvard]] and [[Yale]] University, but declined due to his family's financial condition. He instead enrolled at [[Whittier College]], a local [[Quaker]] school, where he co-founded the "Orthogonian Society", a new organzation to the campus geared towards working-class students. At Whittier, Nixon, a formidable debater, was elected freshman class president, and served as student body vice president in his junior year and president in his senior year. While at Whittier, he taught Sunday school at [[East Whittier Friends Church]] and remained a member all his life.

A lifelong football fan, Nixon practiced with the team, but played little. In 1934, he graduated second in his class from Whittier, and went on to [[Duke University|Duke University School of Law]], where he received a full scholarship, was elected president of the Duke Bar Association, and graduated third in his class.

In 1942 Nixon became a lawyer for the Office of Price Administration, the wartime liberal [[New Deal]] program that regulated all prices and rationed basic commodities.

During World War II, Nixon served in the [[Navy]] as a reserve officer, serving in the supply corps on several islands in the South Pacific, commanding cargo handling units in the SCAT. There he was known as "Nick" and for his exceptional poker-playing skills, banking a large sum of money that helped finance his first campaign for Congress. He rose to the rank of Lieutenant commander and resigned in March, 1946.

==Congressional Career==
:''See related article : [[Legacy of Alger Hiss]]
After service in the Navy he entered an entirely unstructured California political environment-- parties hardly existed there in the 1940s, and many voters were recent arrivals. As a result Nixon never built a secure base in California (or anywhere else). In 1946 he defeated five-term Democrat Representative Jerry Voorhis, a leading liberal. Two years later, Nixon ran for reelection in both the Republican and Democrat primaries and won endorsement of both parties in the general election. <ref>Only California allowed this sort of "cross filing," and they later dropped it and went to normal intra-party primaries. Richard Matthew Pious, ''The Presidents,'' pg. 515</ref> Nixon took typical positions for a California Republican: he was hostile to [[Communism]], internationalist in outlook, and middle-of-the road in economic and social issues.

Nixon's first major breakthrough came in Congress, where his dogged investigation broke the impasse of the [[Alger Hiss]] spy case in 1948. The idea that Hiss--a former senior adviser to President [[Franklin Roosevelt]]-- was a Soviet spy electrified the nation, and won the lifelong hatred of the left, whose veneer of patriotism was dissolved. [[Image:Eisenhower_Nixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Eisenhower and Nixon on a 1952 Campaign Stop.]]
In 1950 Nixon was elected to the [[United States Senate]] by defeating a leading Hollywood liberal, Helen Gahagan Douglas using tough campaign tactics that emphasized her votes with the far left.

==Vice Presidency==

Because of his membership of the California delegation at the 1952 [[Republican National Convention]], his strong anti-[[communist]] credentials, and his appeal to the [[west]]ern part of the [[United States]], Nixon was named as [[General]] [[Dwight Eisenhower]]'s [[Vice President of the United States of America|vice presidential]] [[running mate]].

In the midst of the campaign questions arose about a group of seventy-six [[business]]man from southern California who had contributed to a secret slush fund for Richard Nixon, being paid $900 a month (totaling $18,168 up to that point). There was talk on Nixon dropping off the ticket. Nixon claimed that money was used for office expenses only. On September 23, 1952 he gave the now infamous "Checkers Speech" in which he said that he and his wife, [[Patrica Nixon|Pat Nixon]] do not live lavishly, saying that his wife had not even owned a fur coat but only "a respectable Republican cloth coat." He went on to bring up a gift someone gave his [[child]]ren, a [[dog]] named Checkers, and said defiantly, "regardless of what they about it, we're going to keep it." The speech was meet with overwhelming public approval. In November, Eisenhower and Nixon swept their way in office, winning 55 percent of the vote, to 44 percent for Democrat opponent [[Adlai Stevenson]].

As Vice President Richard Nixon occasionally presided over the Senate and chaired the President's Commission on [[Government]] Contracts, which dealt with radical discrimination by government contractors, and the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability for Economic growth (although Nixon had little influence over it). Nixon also chaired the National Security Council. However, in a [[press]] conference President Eisenhower was asked to give an example of Richard Nixon's contributions as Vice President, to which Eisenhower replied, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

Nixon did, however, have an influential role in [[White House]] political operations. He campaigned for Republican members of Congress in 1954 and 1958. Nixon positioned himself as Presidential and his famous 1959 "Kitchen debate" in [[Moscow]] with [[Soviet Union]] President [[Nikita Khrushchev]] boosted his public appeal. By the end of the Eisenhower administration Nixon had become the top contender to be the Republican nomination for the 1960 Presidential election.

[[Image:Johnfkennedyrichardnixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|Vice President Nixon and Senator Kennedy in their 1960 Presidential Debate.]]

==1960 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1960]]''

Nixon easily won the Republican nomination for the presidency, but ran a poor campaign in the general election. Despite division over the modern [[civil rights]] movement, the country was enjoying a period of relative prosperity.

The most prominent issues were the [[Cold War]] and the new assumption of power of [[dictator]] [[Fidel Castro]] of [[Cuba]]. Public opinion polls showed that the country trusted Nixon more on [[foreign policy]] issues while Democrat opponent [[John F. Kennedy]] was favored on domestic issues. 1960 marked the first presidential election in which televised debates were used. Kennedy won the debates, which resulted in him defeating Nixon by a razor-thin margin of 49.7 percent of the vote to 49.5 percent. Nixon believed that there was voter fraud in Cook County, [[Illinois]] which resulted in him losing that state, however Nixon chose not to contest the results.

==1962 Gubernatorial Campaign==

After the election Nixon returned to California and ran for [[Governor]] in 1962 against incumbent [[Pat Brown]]. Brown defeated Nixon with 52 percent of the vote to 46 percent. In a post-election press conference Nixon announced the end of his political career and said to the press "you won't have Richard Nixon to kick around with anymore."

Nixon continued to campaign for Republican congressional candidates and traveled the world, sharpening his knowledge of foreign issues.

==1968 Presidential Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1968]]''

By 1967 Nixon's financial backers were raising funds to bankroll another bid for the White House. In the Republican primary moderates supported [[Michigan]] Governor [[George Romney]] and later [[New York]] Governor [[Nelson Rockefeller]], while [[conservative]]s supported [[California]] Governor [[Ronald Reagan]]. Nixon was able to win support from southern conservatives and pass Reagan in the polls, eventually winning the nomination. In Nixon's second attempt for the Presidency the United States was in the midst of the [[Vietnam War]], with Democrats associated with the violence. With President [[Lyndon Johnson]] losing [[credibility]] because of the increasingly unpopular [[war]], he declined to run for another term. [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] [[Hubert Humphrey]] narrowly won the Democrat nomination. [[Alabama]] Governor [[George Wallace]], a strong segregationist, entered the race as a third party candidate. Nixon promised to end the bombing in [[Vietnam]], unify the nation and restore law and order to the country.

President Johnson helped Humphrey after he announced that bombing in North Vietnam would be halted and that a cease-fire would follow, however his announcement was too late. On election day, Nixon defeated Humphrey by over 100 electoral votes, although he won the election with only 43 percent of the vote to 42 percent, partly because Wallace took 13 percent.

==1972 Reelection Campaign==

''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 1972]]''

President Nixon's reelection campaign got underway in 1972. He had high approval ratings for his handling with China and the Soviet Union. Nixon's Democrat opponent, [[South Dakota]] Senator [[George McGovern]] was viewed too [[liberal]] by many Americans. However, there was still concern in the Nixon camp because of his close victory in 1968 and the United States' continued involvement in the Vietnam War. He chose to engage in tactics that included an effort to steal information in the Democrat Party's headquarters. Five Nixon supporters broke into the party's office at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] on June 17, 1972. This however did not become an issue in the campaign, with President Nixon trumping McGovern in 49 out of 50 states.

==Presidency (1969-1974)==

===Administration===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| Richard Nixon
| 1969-1974
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]]
| [[Spiro Agnew]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Gerald Ford]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[William P. Rogers]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Henry Kissinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[David M. Kennedy]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[John Connally]]
| 1971-1972
|-
|
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1972-1974
|-
|
| [[William Simon]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Melvin R. Laird]]
| 1969-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973
|-
|
| [[James Schlesinger]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John N. Mitchell]]
| 1969-1972
|-
|
| [[Richard Kleindienst]]
| 1972-1973
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|
| [[William B. Saxbe]]
| 1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Interior]]
| [[Walter Joseph Hickel]]
| 1969-1971
|-
|
| [[Rogers Morton]]
| 1971-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Agriculture]]
| [[Clifford M. Hardin]]
| 1969–1971
|-
|
| [[Earl Butz]]
| 1971–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Commerce]]
| [[Maurice Stans]]
| 1969–1972
|-
|
| [[Peter Peterson]]
| 1972–1973
|-
|
| [[Frederick B. Dent]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Labor]]
| [[George Shultz]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[James D. Hodgson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Peter J. Brennan]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare]]
| [[Robert Finch]]
| 1969–1970
|-
|
| [[Elliot Richardson]]
| 1970–1973
|-
|
| [[Caspar Weinberger]]
| 1973–1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Housing and Urban Development]]
| [[George Romney]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[James Thomas Lynn]]
| 1973-1974
|-
| [[Secretary of Transportation]]
| [[John A. Volpe]]
| 1969–1973
|-
|
| [[Claude Brinegar]]
| 1973-1974
|-
|}

=== Vietnam War ===

[[Image:PresidentNixon.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon points out the NVA sanctuaries along the Cambodian border in his speech to the American people announcing the Cambodian incursion, 04/30/70]] Two months after coming into office American deaths in Vietnam reached thirty-six hundred. Nixon appointed [[Harvard]] Professor [[Henry Kissinger]] as National Security Adviser, who had secret peace talks with the North Vietnamese. Peace negations dragged on throughout Nixon's first term. His Vietnam strategies included "Vietnamization," a policy aimed at reducing U.S. casualties and troops, while also convincing the American public that the Vietnamese people could assume the primary responsibility of waging war. To win support for the war among the [["silent majority,"]] Nixon pursued the [["politics of polarization."]] Instrumental to this cause was Nixon's first vice president [[Spiro T. Agnew]], who criticized opponents of the war as "nattering nabobs of negativism," and an "effete corps of impudent snobs." Nixon also sought to instill in the North Vietnamese the belief that he was volatile and unstable, and willing to use nuclear weapons in the war, a strategy known as the "madman scenario."

On April 30, 1970, ten days after announcing that 150,000 American troops would be withdrawn from Vietnam in the following year, Nixon announced that U.S. troops had invaded Cambodia. This announcement brought widespread protests and college and university campuses across the nation. Four students were shot by National Guardsmen at [[Kent State University]] in Ohio and two died at [[Jackson State University]] in Mississippi. Many campuses shut down, some for the remainder of the academic year. The [[Paris Peace Accords]] were signed on January 27, 1973, signaling the beginning of the peace process that ended with the evacuation of the last American personnel two years later on April 30, 1975. Pictures of the last U.S. Marines evacuating the American Embassy by helicopter while civilians, many of which were employed by the Americans during the war, attempted to climb aboard, has become a symbol of the U.S. defeat in Vietnam.

=== Policy of Detente ===

[[Image:Leonid_Brezhnev_and_Richard_Nixon.jpg‎|right|thumb|275px|Richard M. Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev, 05/19/73.]] Nixon worked to establish a friendlier relationship with the Soviet Union and [[China]]. The Soviets were not pleased of Nixon, a man who spent his career attacking communism, had become President. Although still a strong anti-communist, Nixon understood the growing role of China and Western Europe, realizing that he had to be more diplomatic. With the help of National Security Adviser [[Henry Kissinger]], Nixon created an approach called Detente, which was relaxed tensions between the United States and its two major communist rivals, the Soviet Union and China. Nixon began the policy of detente by lifting trade and travel restrictions.

After a long series of highly secret negations between Kissinger and Chinese leaders, Nixon announced that he would visit China in February 1972. During the historic trip, the leaders of both nations agreed to have more normal relationships. Nixon told the Chinese during a banquet toast, "Let us start a long march together, not in lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of building world structure of peace and justice." In taking the trip, Nixon hoped to both strengthen ties with China but also believed it would encourage the Soviet Union to be more diplomatic. He proved to be correct. Shortly after the public learned about China, the Soviets proposed an American-Soviet summit, a high level diplomatic meeting that was held in May 1972. President Nixon flew to Moscow for a week long summit, thus becoming the first American President since [[World War 2]] to visit the Soviet Union.

The two superpowers signed the first Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT 1, a plan to limit nuclear arms that the two nations had been working on for years. Nixon and Soviet President [[Leonid Brezhnev]] also agreed to increase trade and exchange scientific information. President Nixon had made a significant mark on the world stage with major foreign policy triumphs.

=== Watergate ===

The event that ended the Nixon presidency began on June 17, 1972, when five men, all employees of Nixon's reelection campaign (CREEP), were caught breaking into rival Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC. The intruders and two other accomplices were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973. The [[Watergate affair]] ultimately caused Nixon to resign on August 9, 1974. On September 9, 1974, his successor Gerald Ford granted him "a full, free, and absolute pardon." This effectively ended investigation into the depth of Nixon's involvement in the break-in at [[Democratic National Committee]] headquarters in the Watergate hotel, or any other criminal activities. Former White House Counsel John Dean testified to a Congressional investigating committee of Nixon's involvement in the cover-up.

[[Image:NixonFarewell.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President Nixon delivers his Farewell Remarks to the White House Staff in the East Room, with his family looking on, 08/09/74]] The Congressional hearings revealed Nixon had tape recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. These recordings reveal that Nixon's role in the cover-up began as early as six days after the break-in. The tapes also reveal an immense scope of crimes and abuses that predate the Watergate break-in. These include campaign fraud, political espionage and sabotage, illegal break-ins, improper tax audits, illegal wiretapping on a massive scale, and a secret slush fund laundered in Mexico to pay those who conducted these operations. The president, citing [[Executive Privilege]], refused to turn the tapes over to the committee. In October 1973 Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson, the attorney general, to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson resigned in protest. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was fired by Nixon. Finally, Solicitor General Robert Bork fired Cox. The incident, which was trumped in the press as the "Saturday Night Massacre", led to widespread calls for Nixon's impeachment.

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. The House Judiciary Committee issued three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." After conferring with Republican Senators Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Gerald Ford]]. Ford later pardoned Nixon.

The Nixon White House was also involved in [[Henry_Kissinger#Latin_America| controversies in Latin America]], which included [[Henry_Kissinger#The_Schneider_Affair| an alleged assassination attempt]] in [[Chile]], among [[Henry_Kissinger#Major_Controversies| other questionable activities]].

==Family==

Nixon married Thelma Catherine Ryan, known as "Pat", in 1940. They had two children: Patricia (b. 1946) and Julie (b. 1948).

[[File:Pat nixon.jpg|300px|center]]

==References==
<References/>

==Further reading==

* Aitken, Jonathan. ''Nixon: A Life'' (1993).
* Ambrose, Stephen. ''Nixon'' (3v 1987-1991), the standard scholarly biography [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-I-Stephen-E-Ambrose/dp/0671657224/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808418&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search vol 1]; hostile to RN
* Black, Conrad. ''Richard M. Nixon: A Life in Full'' (2007) 1150pp; by a conservative; friendly to RN
* Bundy, William. ''A Tangled Web: The Making of Foreign Policy in the Nixon Presidency'' (1998). [http://www.amazon.com/Tangled-Web-Making-Foreign-Presidency/dp/B000C4SRCW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808485&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''Congress and the Nation, 1968-1972'' (1973). Detailed coverage of all the official actions in Washington
* Dallek, Robert. ''Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixon-Kissinger-Partners-Robert-Dallek/dp/0060722312/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Frick, Daniel. ''Reinventing Richard Nixon: A Cultural History of an American Obsession''. (2008). 344 pages
* Greenberg, David. ''Nixon's Shadow: The History of the Image'' (2004), influential study of his changing reputation [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Shadow-History-David-Greenberg/dp/0393326160/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450337&sr=1-9 excerpt and text search]
* Hoff, Joan. ''Nixon without Watergate'' (1994) a favorable estimate of the presidential years; also titled ''Nixon Reconsidered''; [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99580185 online edition]
* Kutler, Stanley I. ''Wars of Watergate: The Last Crisis of Richard Nixon'' (1992), strongly hostile [http://www.amazon.com/Wars-Watergate-Crisis-Richard-Nixon/dp/0393308278/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450532&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* MacMillan, Margaret. ''Nixon and Mao: The Week That Changed the World'' (2007)
* Matusow, Allen J. ''Nixon's Economy: Booms, Busts, Dollars, and Votes'' (1998) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixons-Economy-Booms-Busts-Dollars/dp/0700608885/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808547&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Nixon, Richard. ''RN: Memoirs'' (1978),a primary source; one of the most important presidential autobiographies [http://www.amazon.com/RN-Memoirs-Richard-Nixon/dp/0671707418/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1203808583&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Pietrusza, David ''1960: LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign that Forged Three Presidencies'' New York: Union Square Press, 2008
* Reeves, Richard. ''President Nixon: Alone in the White House'' (2002). well-received study of the White House years (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/President-Nixon-Alone-White-House/dp/B000066TQ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450725&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schoenebaum, Eleanora, ed. ''Political Profiles: The Nixon/Ford Years'' (1979), biographies of all the main political figures
* Small, Melvin. ''The Presidency of Richard Nixon'' (1999) [http://www.amazon.com/Presidency-Richard-Nixon-American/dp/0700612556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200450643&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; hostile
* Suri, Jeremi. ''Henry Kissinger and the American Century'' (2007)

==Primary Sources by Nixon==

*Victory Without War, New York, NY: Pocket Books, 1989.
*Beyond Peace, New York, NY: Random House, 1994.
*Four Great Americans: Tributes Delivered by President Richard Nixon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1973.
*In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Leaders New York, NY: Warner Books, 1982.
*Nixon in Retrospect, 1946-1962: Selected Quotations. Silver Spring, MD: Research Data Publishers, 1973.
*No More Vietnams, New York, NY: Arbor House, 1985.
*Real Peace. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One- SuperpowerWorld. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
*Setting the Course; The First Year, New York, NY: Funk & Wagnalls, 1970.
*Six Crises. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1990.
*Summons to Greatness: A Collage of Inspirational Thought and Practical Ideas from the Messages and Addresses of Richard Nixon, Thirty-Seventh President of the United States, Washington, D.C.: Friends of President Nixon, 1972.
*The Real War, New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1980.

==External Links==

* [http://www.nixonfoundation.org Nixon Birthplace & Library], in Yorba Linda, California
* [http://genealogy.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Nixon_(1913) Genealogy Wiki] Nixon Family History
* [http://www.californiaresortlife.com/orange/yorba_linda.htm Birthplace Tour]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/

http://www.nixonfoundation.org/

http://www.nixonlibrary.org/

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nixon, Richard}}

{{USPresidents}}
{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Diplomacy]]
[[Category:Cold War]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]

Talk:World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-18T14:37:16Z

Benp: Undo revision 902791 by Fontecedro (talk)

Marvelous work! But may I draw you attention to [[User talk:Aschlafly#Have you made a determination yet?]] --[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:30, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestions ==

Justinius I/the Justinian Code

Holy Roman Empire/Charlemagne

Origen (Perhaps an Honors term)

Sun Tzu

Niccolo Machiavelli

The Catholic Monarchs

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-18T13:59:57Z

Benp:

Talk:World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-18T13:51:20Z

Benp: /* Suggestions */

Marvelous work! But may I draw you attention to [[User talk:Aschlafly#Have you made a determination yet?]] --[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:30, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestions ==

Justinius I/the Justinian Code?

Holy Roman Empire/Charlemagne?

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:45, 18 August 2011 (EDT)

Talk:World History Study Guide to 1648

2011-08-18T13:45:41Z

Benp: /* Suggestions */ new section

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2011-08-17T17:22:45Z

Benp: /* Artistic beauty argument */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive2|Archive 2]]

How about the idea that no one has ever observed a new species emerge from an old one, either in captivity or the wild? Surely, if evolution were real someone, somewhere would have seen this. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:49, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:They have. Look at the Pacific Robin, Drosophila flies, and the Apple maggot fly. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 14:43, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::There's no evidence that those didn't always exist, but simply weren't discovered until recently. Open your mind and try again. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 15:01, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Actually those species have been observed, but that is an example of [[microevolution]], not "true" [[macroevolution]]. If you are looking for entirely new animals or plants popping up, it will probably never happen. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 15:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

=== PZ Meyers Photo ===

Just out of curiosity, why is the photo of PZ Meyers in this article at all? Also, the "excellent evidence" for why dinosaurs and man coexisted is a link to the Conservapedia dinosaur article. I move that due to multiple issues with this picture (no purpose in this article, caption having nothing to do with article / bad sourcing) that it be removed from this page. Honestly looking at this page, it appears that this picture might have been added as parody to deface what is otherwise an excellent debunking of evolution. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:57, 24 July 2011 (EDT)
:For now I have removed the photo in question, although I am willing to have a discussion on this, but please if you revert this change provide at least one reason why it should be in the article. --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 16:16, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

== Improving article ==

Hi jcw. I'd really like to improve this article, because a lot of the arguments in it are outdated or fallacious. I think we should cut out a lot of the more silly ones and focus more on promising things like irreducible complexity. Can I give you a list (with explanations) of which examples I think should go? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:10, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:There are a couple of changes that I think would improve this, that's for sure. There are a couple of duplications, for example the flagellum is mentioned under two separate categories. I think we should remove one entry and expand the other one to include a lot more of Michael Behe's work on it and some rebuttals of Ken Miller's attack on him. Also the last one, about scientists proving that the chicken came before the egg - I think that should go, because I suspect it's a parody anyway. It certainly isn't true. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::There's always room for reasonable discussion here on CP, so please go ahead. As you've seen, it's very much advisable to discuss your ideas before wading in - it might not be obvious to a new user, but the articles are frequently targeted by vandals and trolls, so we tend to be very cautious about changes. Nevertheless, we all want to see the most effective arguments used in the article, so as long as it's clear that that's our goal we shouldn't have any problems. I recommend pairing suggestions for removal with suggestions for addition, as you've both begun to do above. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Great, thanks for the advice! I've taken out one reference to the flagellum and added some information to the remaining one (under Irreducible Complexity, where it fits better.) I've just ordered Prof Behe's book, so hopefully in a week or so I can add a bit more detail without having to rely on dubious sources. Do you think it would be OK if I removed the statement about chickens and eggs? I'm 99% sure somebody put that in as a joke, and 100% sure that it's wrong. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:27, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't know whether it's true or not, but the chicken/egg point is supported by a link to a news story. Not the best source perhaps, but before removing it I'd follow the source up and see if it's reliable. Your flagellum edit seems reasonable to me - the observation does fit better in its new place. I look forward to more progress. Thanks for taking it slowly; it makes everyone's lives easier. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:38, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I read the news story and I think it's a bit misleading. The impression I get is that the research was really about materials and the chicken and egg comments were a bit of a joke on the part of the researchers. They're mechanical engineers, not biologists, so they're not really qualified to comment. Also the story is from the Daily Mail. Their hearts are generally in the right place, but unfortunately the Mail is a bit like the National Enquirer with spellcheck. I really think this should come out. We have plenty of good refutations of evolution, and I think saying things like this has the potential to do more harm than good. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:50, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Jcw, is it OK if I delete the chicken and egg line? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:57, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::It certainly seems like a weak and unsupported argument to me; I'd be happy to see it removed, but of course I can't speak for anyone else. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
== Perfect number of teeth? ==

I had my wisdom teeth out last year because teeth ''do'' get over crowded in the mouth! For many people! This obviously doesn't mean evolution is true - but the fact remains we do not have the perfect number of teeth. I won't remove it myself until there has been further commentary from the community. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Yes, I had mine out too. There's no need to turn to evolutionism when there's a perfectly good explanation for it - degeneration since the Fall - but it's definitely not true that we have the perfect number of teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:31, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Not quite, JMairs - you're right about degeneration, but the conclusion that we don't have the perfect number of teeth isn't exactly correct - we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed. I suppose it's just a different way of looking at it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:43, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::''we do have the perfect number of teeth when everything else is working as designed.'' That is a rather ad hoc explanation. Fact is it is rare for anyone to not have to have any teeth removed (or braces) because teeth fit rather awkwardly into the mouth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:45, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::What else would you expect in a fallen world? The fact that in some people the teeth do fit perfectly into the mouth shows how God's plan for man works perfectly as He designed it; the widespread imperfection shows the pervasive influence of the Fall. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:55, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::I think we probably have more problems with wisdom teeth now, because most people have better dental health and we tend to keep all our teeth. My guess is that a couple of hundred years ago most people had already lost some teeth by the time the wisdom teeth came in, so there was room in the jaw for them. Now we don't. This is interesting; I never really thought about it before. Maybe we do have the perfect number of teeth for a fallen race and it's going wrong because of technology? I'm no dentist, so I vote we leave this one as it is until we hear from someone who knows about teeth. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:56, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
(unindent)Interesting indeed. I agree with leaving it be for now. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:02, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::So we don't have the perfect number of teeth because we are fallen. which is why the example should be removed. Whether or not we used to is irrelevant because the example talks in the present tense and presently humans do not have the perfect number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:03, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I'd argue that we DO have the perfect number of teeth for the situation God left us in after the Fall. How long have we had good dentistry, maybe 100 years? That's about 1.5% of the time since the Fall. Even in the present tense most people don't have good dental care; it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan. Even now most people are going to be losing teeth quite young, and their wisdom teeth will let them keep chewing food even if they've lost some molars. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:09, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::''it only really exists in North America, Europe, Australasia and Japan'' Err, what about New Zealand, Australia, Argentina, etc etc.
::::::::If we had the perfect number of teeth then wisdom teeth wouldn't impact and we wouldn't need braces. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:11, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

This discussion is veering towards argument. Max, please try to stay civil and respectful. As the possessor of a full set of wisdom teeth, I don't see what the fuss is about. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:13, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:No, it is not veering towards an argument and I have been completely civil and respectful. The article currently states ''the shortening of the muzzle would have caused the teeth to become overcrowded in the mouth.'' when in the majority of people the the teeth ''are'' over-crowded hence the prevalence of wisdom teeth removal and braces. Wisdom teeth don't need removing in every case but will still be impacted. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:16, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Max, you surely accept that we live in a fallen world in which imperfection is the norm? But imperfection implies a perfect model from which the imperfect deviates; that perfect model is God's design, a design which we can clearly infer parts of, even from our imperfect world. You're wrong to imply that all or most people need the wisdom teeth removing or to wear braces. I understand that's more common in the USA, but here in Britain it's very rare to wear braces and wisdom teeth are often left in. This clearly shows us that the pre-Fall design had a perfect number of teeth - even in a fallen world, a substantial proportion of people do have exactly the right number of teeth. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 19:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Max, I know exactly what you're saying, but my point is that for most people in most of human history we DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw. What if God made it that way to help us survive, and now it's going wrong because of dentistry? We can't uninvent toothpaste, and if He uninvented wisdom teeth how long do you think it would be before Dawkins was yowling "There's proof of evolution! We don't grow wisdom teeth any more!" My bet is about a week. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:20, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::If we take what you have said above as read then the entry ''still'' needs editing because a) you are saying pre-fall we were perfect but the entry is in the present tense suggesting it is still perfect and b) many people do not have the perfect number of teeth and whether or not wisdom are left in doesn't mean that are not impacted - it just means they are left in. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::''e DIDN'T need braces, because by the time people's wisdom teeth started to grow they'd already have lost some teeth and there would be plenty of space in the jaw.'' As to this - teeth don't move - if I lost a front a tooth my wisdom teeth would still impact at the back. It is the ''jaw'' that is too small for the number of teeth. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:25, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::Yes, but we can survive without front teeth as long as we can still chew food properly. The wisdom teeth would compensate for lost molars, which have a more complex shape and would be more likely to be lost without modern dentistry. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

::::::(Edit conflict) In response to Max's comments earlier, braces are not used to alter the number of teeth, but to align them better. As to the removal of wisdom teeth, it seems likely that there are removed more often than necessary, just as tonsils were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::I think there's a lot of truth in that: I was in the British Army and they remove pretty much everybody's wisdom teeth as a routine, whether it's necessary or not. They can cause problems though. I had mine out before I joined, because I was in a lot of pain. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 19:33, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Yes but they are out of line in many cases because the jaw is too small. Also wisdom don't always need removing but will still grow sideways (impact). I defer to you Andy but we certainly don't have a perfect number of teeth - perhaps due to the fall as suggested above. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:32, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::::::I have the perfect number of teeth - 28! I have never had and (I am told by my dentist) never will have the last four molars. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 10:16, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Raptorex ==

I've done some reading on this and it looks like Raptorex is rejected by most palaeontologists, so it's inaccurate to say that it's causing changes in evolutionary theory. Does anyone have any better information on it? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 18:24, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

== Bats ==

I'm not sure about the bat example under irreducible complexity. Of the two families of bats, one doesn't echolocate at all but is still fully capable of flight (the megabats.) Given that, is it a good idea to insist that evolutionism says flight and echolocation must have evolved together? It looks like they'd be able to argue that this was a strawman and much as it pains me to say it, they'd be right. It doesn't look like an important argument, so maybe we shouldn't make it. Any thoughts? --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:23, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:Oops, I just noticed this: "an animal that can't fly doesn't need (sonar.)" Um. Dolphins? Maybe not the best argument in the world. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 20:30, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::Several ground shrews use echolocation too. Regardless, bats don't need sonar to fly, so this isn't an example of irreducible complexity. It should really be removed. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 21:19, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::OK, I'll delete it. Any arguments with that? Thanks. --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:06, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
::::FYI, anyone who deletes an item needs to update the number of examples at the top of the page. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:07, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::OK thanks, will do! --[[User:JMairs|JMairs]] 23:40, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
:::::Ah right, sorry! I forgot that. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:47, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted User SamCoulter's legitimate edits. ==

During a vandal attack when I was in a hurry and tired, I may have reverted SamCoulter's legitimate edits and blocked him. Not sure what my schedule is going to be like in the near term and I am hoping that now that this editor is unblocked that he will choose to get involved in this talk page. That may be wishful thinking, but I did undo the block one day letter. If others want to pick up where SamCoulter left off, I would not be in opposition to this. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:20, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:That's OK, I understand that there were some problems at the time. Just, you know, don't be so quick on the trigger from now on? --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 00:30, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:::Other than add some pictures and a little content, I have had very limited involvement in this article. I don't have the inclination to get involved in this article due to my current priorities so I will let you work out your differences with the other editors. My apologies if you were taken out temporarily due to some "friendly blocking fire" during the fog of blocking war. :) I thought I had heard a Conservapedian yell out [http://www.military.com/ContentFiles/WWS_time3.htm "Broken arrow"] yesterday. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:09, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== Artistic beauty argument ==

Personally I don't think that autumn leaves DID exist before there were men to see them. Autumn leaves are dead, and death didn't exist before the Fall. As for marine fish, there are plenty of reasons for them to have beautiful colours that don't have anything to do with how good they look to men. Fish have a wonderful ability to swim in coordinated schools, and coloured flanks can obviously help them do that. Most fish fade to grey as soon as they die - and they die when we catch them - so I doubt that God made their colours for us to look at. I think He made their colours for other fish to see, as a navigation aid. It's not that I think I can refute this argument; I just don't think it IS an argument. Sorry. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 01:42, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
:I'm sorry, ''"death didn't exist before the fall"''?
:So in the days, months or years before the fall not a single leaf from a single tree ''ever'' worked it's way loose from its parent and fell to the ground?
:If "death didn't exist" for plants (of all things) then all the "green things" G-d gave unto man for eating never died when Adam partook?
:You may want to re-examine your logic here. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 13:06, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

::You have to take into account both the cultural context and how the autographic authors defined "life." Plants didn't fit into their classification of life. (If you read carefully, you'll find that "life" is usually equated to "having the breath of life.") Thus, it would have been entirely possible to have fall leaves (and green plants consumed,) while still having no "death" as conceptualized at the time. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:22, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

== float like a butterfly and sting like a creationist bee ==

SamCoulter, I remember watching a PBS Nature show and the show admitted that evolutionist don't have a clue how bee social behavior evolved. Afterwards, the local PBS fundraisers were dumbfounded/shocked the show admitted this and they were like liberal evolutionists deer in the headlights. So I think you are way off base. I briefly wanted to offer [http://books.google.com/books?id=zJzC7nfAMWEC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=bees+%22divine+guidance+and+command%22&source=bl&ots=xAVwcJihMN&sig=txBcIIN3ddUes8NDt1BX9A1LKVM&hl=en&ei=lFpLTtrjLYnDgQfX3YFz&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=bees%20%22divine%20guidance%20and%20command%22&f=false this information] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=OlNaAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=rhombic+dodecahedron+bees+god&source=bl&ots=XUGsWfPVCY&sig=TwGPYh3AYeZjlgrmOgoGlz3owVM&hl=en&ei=glxLTtayMdO00AH39ZzrBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=rhombic%20dodecahedron%20bees%20god&f=false this information] and [http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/SixCornered.html this information] before I let you work out matters with other editors.

Also this:

"An interesting example of the Fibonacci series in nature is regarding bees. Some unique facts about Bees are that males are produced by the queen's unfertilized eggs, so they have only a mother, no father. The females, however, have both a father and a mother. Start by imagining one male worker bee, then figure out how many parents, how many grand-parents and how many great-grand-parents he would have. Working this out you can show that the number of bees of each generation follow a Fibonacci series exactly, both for males and females. No this is not the twilight zone, this is the intellegent arranging God has done in the real world."[http://creationanswers.net/inteldesign/GODRATIO.HTM] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:18, 17 August 2011 (EDT)

:Oh, no way can they explain bee social behaviour. They can explain the caste system though, as long as they accept Dawkins' gene-level selection theory (which is controversial even among evolutionists.) Ironically it comes down to what you said about male bees (drones) only having a mother. Evolutionists who follow Dawkins say that because drones share all their DNA with the queen, they can spread that DNA without reproducing as long as they serve the queen. It's actually a logically consistent argument, but bee behaviour like honey dances can't be explained by evolution. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 02:26, 17 August 2011 (EDT)
It's funny you should bring up [[Richard Dawkins]]. Are you interested in creating a [[Elevatorgate]] article. If you do write up an article, don't forget to mention that atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc.

Here are some sources:

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/ [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:51, 17 August 2011 (EDT)