Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?

2008-05-23T21:58:40Z

Capercorn: /* No */

It seems that many of the science topics are only using PoV websites for sources instead of actual publications and peer reviewed research papers. When scientists write science publications they cite peer reviewed papers and published works only when dealing with the research aspect of the science. When dealing with the application they will sometimes use a website to better illustrate the application of the method. When a quote is used the context of the quote is secondary to the research and used to support the topic, not the other way around.

In doing so the science based topics would have a structure like below -

: Description and Mechanisms of Topic
: Method and Experimentation
: Supporting Quotes
: Criticisms of Research
: Criticism Evidence

This can be used for students to learn and also provide opposing evidence so that both sides can be better informed.

Should we follow this method, at conservapedia?

== Yes ==
--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes & No==

In theory it would be better that way, but sources like that are hard to find, have not always been put on the internet at all, or are protected (only accessible from universities or with a password).

In addition many of those articles are incomprehensible to just about everyone, except for specialists in that field.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: I can understand that, application is where other sources could be cited for the layman. Pubmed and other science journals are pretty easy to use and link to. Personaly I see this as a way of making sure that people will only edit what they have taken the time out to understand.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, articles from accessible science journals should be included as often as possible, I agree.

I also propose a rule that in the case of quotes, demands a link to a text in which the entire quote and its original context are included, to avoid quote mining or misinterpretations.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I would agree as well. The quote mining thing is an issue. If you are using a quote from Darwin's book then link to the book online not some website that gives a POV without a link to the book.

Perhaps just the structure for science articles should be used, that way we could distinguish the difference between science articles and philosophical POV articles?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, not sure everyone hear knows how to write a solid scientific article though.
Maybe there should be a new commandment, or a guide on how to structure scientific articles, with an example on how to, and how NOT to go about it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== No ==
Nope, too hard. And trying to define "acceptable references/unacceptable references" tends to encourage disputes.

The '''important thing''' about a reference is that the reader should be able to trace where the item came from, and enough information should be provided so that readers can judge for themselves whether ''they'' trust the reference.

(That doesn't mean no guidelines at all. I was recently involved in an issue on Wikipedia in which there was a dispute over sourcing an item—the text of some graffiti in Barrington Hall on the Berkeley campus—which was there solely on an editor's personal recollection. After the editor argued for many days that no source was required, and losing the argument, suddenly a new blog appeared on the Web which quoted the exact list of graffiti with the exact wording that the editor had wanted to have in the article... as well as saying how important those graffiti were and that they were essential to any account of Barrington Hall's history. That editor then immediately put the material back, citing the blog as a reliable source both for the content of the graffiti and their importance. Much discussion ensued...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Just in case this whole discussion might possibly about, um, let's say evolution versus creationism, there's nothing wrong with citing creationist websites as long as it's obvious to the reader what they are... and that the article is intellectually honest. Darwin was wrong"[#]" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"[#], while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"[#]" is OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point but it seems the issue we are having is the substantiation of claims. The POV issue is the problem that we are finding on many of the pages here. By having the citations as accurate as the science it would reduce the POV and provide an objective stance to the reader. Right now many of the science based articles on this site could not be used by a student to pass any science exams since they are riddled with POV and quote mines without providing an accurate description of the science.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:::I'm all for stating both sides to an issue, so long as both sides are explained ACCURATELY! I am sick and tired of people going around preaching that Evolution says that there is no god, science can not prove or disprove the existance of god. I've also heard that Evolution says that life originated on it's own, it does not, that is the study of abiogenesis. Facts must plainly stated on there own. I don't rant about false claims about Creation, because anybody with half a brain cell can type in "Genesis" on [http://www.google.com google], and get the entire statement. Confusion about facts is bad, the bible even says so. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::''For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. I Corinthians 14:33. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16'' I'd say that the Bible says Confusion is evil from this. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 17:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Evolution does not directly say there is no God, any more than Intelligent Design says there is a God. Each theory, however, leads to those respective conclusions. Indeed, the first thing Darwinists usually say in response to ID's critique of evolution is that ID is "merely creationism in disguise". Why can't the anti-Darwinists make the same charge about evolution? It's merely atheism shrouded in materialism.

Darwinists say that only physical forces and laws must be considered when looking at biology. But the evidence is that these are insufficient to account for what biologists themselves call the "appearance of design".

I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?

2008-05-23T21:58:08Z

Capercorn: /* No */

It seems that many of the science topics are only using PoV websites for sources instead of actual publications and peer reviewed research papers. When scientists write science publications they cite peer reviewed papers and published works only when dealing with the research aspect of the science. When dealing with the application they will sometimes use a website to better illustrate the application of the method. When a quote is used the context of the quote is secondary to the research and used to support the topic, not the other way around.

In doing so the science based topics would have a structure like below -

: Description and Mechanisms of Topic
: Method and Experimentation
: Supporting Quotes
: Criticisms of Research
: Criticism Evidence

This can be used for students to learn and also provide opposing evidence so that both sides can be better informed.

Should we follow this method, at conservapedia?

== Yes ==
--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes & No==

In theory it would be better that way, but sources like that are hard to find, have not always been put on the internet at all, or are protected (only accessible from universities or with a password).

In addition many of those articles are incomprehensible to just about everyone, except for specialists in that field.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: I can understand that, application is where other sources could be cited for the layman. Pubmed and other science journals are pretty easy to use and link to. Personaly I see this as a way of making sure that people will only edit what they have taken the time out to understand.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:42, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, articles from accessible science journals should be included as often as possible, I agree.

I also propose a rule that in the case of quotes, demands a link to a text in which the entire quote and its original context are included, to avoid quote mining or misinterpretations.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I would agree as well. The quote mining thing is an issue. If you are using a quote from Darwin's book then link to the book online not some website that gives a POV without a link to the book.

Perhaps just the structure for science articles should be used, that way we could distinguish the difference between science articles and philosophical POV articles?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, not sure everyone hear knows how to write a solid scientific article though.
Maybe there should be a new commandment, or a guide on how to structure scientific articles, with an example on how to, and how NOT to go about it?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== No ==
Nope, too hard. And trying to define "acceptable references/unacceptable references" tends to encourage disputes.

The '''important thing''' about a reference is that the reader should be able to trace where the item came from, and enough information should be provided so that readers can judge for themselves whether ''they'' trust the reference.

(That doesn't mean no guidelines at all. I was recently involved in an issue on Wikipedia in which there was a dispute over sourcing an item—the text of some graffiti in Barrington Hall on the Berkeley campus—which was there solely on an editor's personal recollection. After the editor argued for many days that no source was required, and losing the argument, suddenly a new blog appeared on the Web which quoted the exact list of graffiti with the exact wording that the editor had wanted to have in the article... as well as saying how important those graffiti were and that they were essential to any account of Barrington Hall's history. That editor then immediately put the material back, citing the blog as a reliable source both for the content of the graffiti and their importance. Much discussion ensued...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Just in case this whole discussion might possibly about, um, let's say evolution versus creationism, there's nothing wrong with citing creationist websites as long as it's obvious to the reader what they are... and that the article is intellectually honest. Darwin was wrong"[#]" won't do, but "The creationist website so-and-so says "Darwin was wrong"[#], while scientific journal so-and-so says "Darwin was right"[#]" is OK. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:57, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Good point but it seems the issue we are having is the substantiation of claims. The POV issue is the problem that we are finding on many of the pages here. By having the citations as accurate as the science it would reduce the POV and provide an objective stance to the reader. Right now many of the science based articles on this site could not be used by a student to pass any science exams since they are riddled with POV and quote mines without providing an accurate description of the science.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:17, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Also the problem of who publishes the research. Which religious POV published it? Evolutionism or Creation? Also scientific related? Or just pure physical science? Sounds more like this is a fishing expedition then a sound query. Well you can always set up enough rules and regulations on anything to get a desired affect.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:::I'm all for stating both sides to an issue, so long as both sides are explained ACCURATELY! I am sick and tired of people going around preaching that Evolution says that there is no god, science can not prove or disprove the existance of god. I've also heard that Evolution says that life originated on it's own, it does not, that is the study of abiogenesis. Facts must plainly stated on there own. I don't rant about false claims about Creation, because anybody with half a brain cell can type in "Genesis" on [http://www.google.com google], and get the entire statement. Confusion about facts is bad, the bible even says so. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:14, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::::Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? I would like to see that. I would also like to see how half a brain cell is still able to operate. Or is it that people who google it are operating on half a brain cell versus someone that uses the dewey decimal system? Sorry about the sarcasm. Funny what people also think of as facts these days.--
[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:29, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::''For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. I Corinthians 14:33. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. James 3:16'' I'd say that the Bible says Confusion is evil from this. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 17:58, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Evolution does not directly say there is no God, any more than Intelligent Design says there is a God. Each theory, however, leads to those respective conclusions. Indeed, the first thing Darwinists usually say in response to ID's critique of evolution is that ID is "merely creationism in disguise". Why can't the anti-Darwinists make the same charge about evolution? It's merely atheism shrouded in materialism.

Darwinists say that only physical forces and laws must be considered when looking at biology. But the evidence is that these are insufficient to account for what biologists themselves call the "appearance of design".

I think we should reference any scientific source, whether it's a peer reviewed scientific paper, a popular book written for laymen, or a newspaper or blog article. Whatever gets the point across with accurate, reliable information is good enough for me. Any theory worth considering is worth comparing with the facts. So if evolution is all it's supposed to be, its supporters ought not to mind close scrutiny. After all, there is no way to disprove a true theory! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Why Reason?

2008-05-19T17:45:07Z

Capercorn: /* Science */

{{debate}}

What is Logic and Philosophy that we should depend on it? [[Science]] cannot really prove anything; what about mathematics, or Reason? What is the good of it if it's only as strong as the mortal minds who concieve it? These very sentences have been reasoned by a human mind.
How can anyone trust their life to anything but an absolute truth. For instance, without the Bible, you rely on reason. You reason a moral system where every person as rights and no one can infringe anyone else's rights. But how can you know whats right and wrong if you don't have a standard? What's so special about Logic that makes it infalliable? Would even the best logic work every time? If you throw a penny in the air 100 times and it falls to the ground 100 times whos to say it will fall to the ground on the 101 first throw?

== Only the Bible is Infallible ==

Which one?
O.K. heres the thing. I can throw a penny in the air 101, 1001, or 100,000 times. It will fall to the ground. This can be measured, and proven. Give me one piece of evidence that the bible was written by anyone other than men. And don't tell me I have to take it on faith--that is the difference between fact and fantasy--I can prove facts.
:Actually, if you throw the penny ''really'' far, what you liberals call "gravity" will cease to pull it back down to our flat Earth. As your metaphor has been proven false by me, it follows that your whole point of view is wrong. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 06:51, 3 January 2008
::What you wrote suggests that "liberals" don't realize "their gravity" weakens further away from Earth. It turns out they do. --[[User:Quantumdot|Quantumdot]] 17:26, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
you are being very foolish cranky Joe he is talking about using human strength to throw the penny it is physically impossible for a human to through a penny into space and the earth is not flat if it were then there would be a spot that if you sailed to you would just fall off the map which has never happened and if you go into space you go into space and view the earth its a sphere not a flat piece of matter just siting there

Any decent scientist would not say God does not exist. God cannot be measured and tested. He is like everything else that is outside the field of science. Scientists simply do not have a professional opinion about it. [[User:CMacloud|CMacloud]] 19:17, 21 February 2008 (EST)

== The Mind is trustworthy ==

I don't know if I agree with the parameters of this debate. Logic certainly isn't infallible, or else we wouldn't have paradoxes (for example, "this is a lie"). It does however provide the most effective tools for navigating the world around us and making sense of our experiences.

The very foundation of a debate is logic, anyway. The negators will employ logic in constructing an opposing argument, and the affirmers will use logic to counter it. The very act of reading a Bible requires feats of logic (one doesn't simply gain literacy by divine inspiration, unless you're Mohammed).

I'm all for interpretations of the Bible and contextual readings, but assuming the infallibility of anything - the Bible, the Constitution, the local phone directory - is fundamentally irrational behaviour. It precludes critical thinking and evaluation, and as such, cannot be debated in any meaningful way. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:52, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I would argue in response that logic is a process rather than a source of knowledge. As far as paradoxes go, most are purely linguistic in nature or are based on faulty premises (take Zeno's dichotomy paradox which is based on mathematical fallacy) which are just not readily apparent.

I happily accept your final paragraph though, however, i think the parameters attempted to include what you define as critical thinking and evaluation under the heading of logic. However, this is a fault of the page not defining clearly enough rather than your interpreatation.

== Science ==

One thing that seems to keep cropping up on this site is a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. No scientist ''ever'' says something is "proven". Science is based upon the idea of falsifiability; that is, something is assumed to be the case ''until it is proven '''not''' to be.'' For example, gravity is one theory which is the best interpretation of all the evidence available. Every time a scientific study investigates gravity and it supports the theory, our confidence in the theory is increased. But the theory could be '''disproved''' with ''one'' contradictory result. You can never prove, merely disprove.

As such, something is never scientifically "proven". It is simply yet to be disproved. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:31, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:I should probably mention though that your "one contradictory result" would have to be repeatable and well-documented, but in essence, yes. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:10, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::Or else the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy would have been disproven by high school chemistry students long ago. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:45, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2008-05-19T17:40:05Z

Capercorn: /* Yes */

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

2008-05-16T20:14:15Z

Capercorn: /* YES */

=YES=

For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on [[autoeroticism]] and [[oral sex]] have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia some] as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We ''choose'' not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do ''you'' think a child should be educated about fellatio? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:: As I've said, any sexual topic can be presented in a euphemistic way that doesn't sexualise children. I don't think a child should be educated about fellatio. But if a child happens to stumble across the fellatio article, it can be written in a way that the child won't understand it and become bored of it. All you need to say is "Fellatio is a sexual practice that conservatives disapprove of. Fellatio causes X, is supported by Y, and opposed by Z" You don't need to describe the graphic details. Why would such an article corrupt a child?? Conservapedia also has an article on [[homosexuality]]. How come you think children should be educated about ''that'' but not fellatio?

:::You are making a blanket, false and rather trite statement that "conservatives" disapprove of things because they don't have articles about them or discuss them at the water cooler. That demonstrates very poor reasoning on your part. A healthy, active and satisfying sex life within marriage is a ''good thing'' and nothing to be ashamed of. But similarly, my wife and I don't rut in the supermarket because it is also a private thing for us within our marriage. As for the article on homosexuality, if I was the site owner I would delete that too. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Most conservatives ''do'' disapprove of autoeroticism and fellatio. In many conservative-dominated states in America the practice was punishable by prison until recently! You argue that conservatives see sexual practices as a purely private matter and that this is the reason they don't talk about them. But they don't. Conservatives have a long history of trying to meddle with the private sexual life of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick others] (even non-conservatives). Fact is, currently there ''is'' a political debate going on between conservatives about the legality of fellatio, and this encyclopedia fails to even mention that debate. [[User:Harebrained|Harebrained]] 09:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: Notice that Fox said "within marriage", not just "in private". Your example from Wikipedia was not of something "within marriage". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

= NO! =

This is not your website, if you want YOUR website to discuss such matters, by all means do so, just don't link to it from here. Seeing as those who do own this website do not want to discuss such things doesn't make it 'blinkered' or whaterver you call it. This is known in Capitalism as the Protection of Property, and the owners of this website clearly do not want info on such things stored in their databases. You have no right to complain. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:14, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2008-05-16T19:53:44Z

Capercorn: /* Yes */ Nobody expects the GRAMMOR inquisition!

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2008-05-16T19:53:08Z

Capercorn: /* Why Not? */

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, there just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-16T19:50:01Z

Capercorn: /* Yes */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I am opposed to any Government authority or otherwise censoring anything. People have a right to read, watch, and play what they want. Granted, parental units can restrict media to their children, but that is about it. Those over the age of 18 should have access to any media they wish to access, this is guarenteed by the First Ammendment of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be kept that way. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:49, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:50, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-16T19:49:52Z

Capercorn: /* No */

Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?

2008-05-16T19:46:41Z

Capercorn: /* Yes */

Well, I'll come out clearly and say that I'm against any book banning, but I think it would be a topic for a lively discussion so I place it before you and eagerly await your opinions.

==No==

No, a library is a place that categorizes knowledge, even obscene or unpopular knowledge. Banning books from libraries is tantamount to censorship. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Censorship is a liberal concept, and thus I do not believe in it. It is an attempt to create conformity among the youth of our nation. -[[User:BMoore|BMoore]] 02:10, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Actually censorship is generally incompatible with liberalism. True liberalism holds that the individual ought be allowed the maximum possible freedom so long as the exercise of such freedom does not impinge on the freedom of others. Censorship is something more often associated with religiously motivated groups and totalitarian societies. That being said, liberalism would allow for censorship of books which could cause harm. I would think that bomb making books might fall into that category for example. --[[User:LeopoldRex|LeopoldRex]] 02:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Differing use of terms, Leopold. Most here, I think, would refer to that philosophy as "Libertarianism"--though some might agree with you that it's closely related to liberalism. I see it as a very conservative philosophy, in that it is essentially the philosophy of many of the Founding Fathers.

::That being said, censorship occurs for many reasons. Certainly, there have been instances where conservative Christians called for censorship of materials they considered to be offensive or spiritually dangerous; the Harry Potter books spring to mind immediately. On the other hand, we have the ad nauseam attempts to censor, say, ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it contains offensive words--completely ignoring the fact that the book uses those words in a historical context to teach a valuable lesson.

::--

Good points from both of you guys, although I'd like to know exactly how liberals cry for censorship? I never hear any of them saying how certain movies, books, or songs should be banned. Well, actually it does occur occasionally, so perhaps more accurately I should say liberals censor much less than conservatives. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 13:19, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Generally speaking, "liberal" censorship takes the form of concern about racism or violent material and protecting children from exposure to the same. Consider Tipper Gore, and her crusade to protect children from rock music back in the eighties. Shakespeare's ''The Merchant of Venice'' has been banned in the past because Shylock is considered an offensive Jewish stereotype. Likewise, ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' and ''Huckleberry Finn''
:The folks calling for these bans generally have good intentions, but we all know the old saying about good intentions.
:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 13:50, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

I agree that certain books should be banned. Censorship already exists for the most extreme obscene and terrorist material in libraries. You've got to ask why are standards of morality being constantly eroded? I'm not saying Harry Potter books are going to corrupt a child, but at the least it will desensitize an impressionable mind to the occult. The progessive liberalisation of media is a dangerous road to go down. The effects of desensitivation to sex and violence are all to obvious in declining values and increasing crime (in the UK). I can't see the government doing anything, so I guess self censorship is the answer for those who still care. Free speech and human rights are wonderful, but what about the right to walk down the street without getting verbal abuse or being attacked! Regards, Adam
:But Self-Censorship is in and of itself not censorship. Censorship is where an authority restricts access to certain types of media (such as books, videogames, internets, movies) to people (minors excluded). Choosing not to read something is not censorship.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Wisconsin

2008-05-14T14:55:07Z

Capercorn:

{{USState
|name=Wisconsin
|flag=wisc_flag.jpg
|motto=Forward
|nick=The Badger State
|capital=Madison
|language=None
|governor=Jim Doyle
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=Russ Feingold
|s1party=Democrat
|senator2=Herb Kohl
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=May 29, 1848 (30th)
}}
[[Image:Wisconsin ref 2001.jpg|300 px|thumb|right|Geographic map of Wisconsin]]
'''Wisconsin''', the "Badger State", or unofficially "America's Dairyland", was the thirtieth state to enter the union, on May 29, 1848. The capital city of Wisconsin is [[Madison]]. The state is expected to be a key battleground in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. It is the home state of former Secretary of Health and Human services, [[Tommy Thompson]], who served as a four-term governor from 1987 to 2001.

The town of Ripon in Wisconsin has been considered "The Birthplace of the [[Republican Party]]".

The state tree is the sugar maple, the state song is "On Wisconsin", the state flower is the wood violet, the state bird is the American [[robin]], the state animal is the [[badger]], the state [[fossil]] is the [[trilobite]], and the state fish is the [[muskellunge]].<ref>http://www.legis.state.wi.us/senate/scc/kids/facts.htm</ref>

Wisconsin's nickname, "The Badger State," recalls the lead mining boom of the 1830s. Wisconsin was a mining state before it was a farm state. Native Americans knew about lead deposits; initially, metallic lead could be picked up from the ground without digging. Cornish miners were some of the earliest European settlers of the state.<ref>[http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-026/?action=more_essay Lead Mining in Southwestern Wisconsin]</ref> Southwestern Wisconsin is now a sparsely populated agricultural region, but for a while it was the economic center of the state. The first territorial capital was Belmont,<ref>[http://www.belmontwi.com/pages/1/index.htm Belmont Wisconsin] town website</ref> located about thirty miles from Dubuque, Iowa). Lead mining peaked in the mid-1840s, and the California gold rush of 1849 drew many miners away. The current population of Belmont is 891.<ref>[http://www.idcide.com/citydata/wi/belmont.htm Belmont profile], idcide website.</ref>

Wisconsin cannot be stereotyped politically. It is often associated with the name of anti-communist crusader [[Joseph McCarthy]], but is equally tied to that of Robert M. La Follette and his Progressive Party. [[Victor Berger]], the first socialist elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, and Frank Zeidler, the Mayor of Milwaukee from 1948-1960 was the last in a string of twelve socialist mayors of Milwaukee, whose emphasis on the basics of municipal service led them to be called "sewer Socialists."<ref>[http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-043/?action=more_essay Milwaukee Sewer Socialism, Wisconsin State Historical Association]</ref>

==Sports in Wisconsin==

[[Milwaukee]] Wisconsin is home to three professional sports teams. The [[Milwaukee Brewers|Brewers]] (baseball), the [[Milwaukee Bucks|Bucks]] (basketball), and the Admirals (hockey). Wisconsin is also home to the Green Bay Packers football team which has largest following of any professional sports team in the state. Wisconsin is also home to various college sports programs, most notably the Wisconsin Badgers and the Marquette Golden Eagles.

== Abortion in Wisconsin ==

Wisconsin has the 8th lowest [[abortion rankings|abortion rate]] in the United States, and it has declined to a record low since 1974, the first year after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'':<ref>Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com (Apr. 9, 2007)
http://www.lifenews.com/state2218.html</ref>

:There were 9,580 abortions done in the state in 2006, down from 9,817 in 2005. This is the third year in a row that abortions in the Midwestern state have decreased and the number is the lowest since 1974.

:"Wisconsin Right to Life is ecstatic that Wisconsin abortion numbers continue to decline," Barbara Lyons, the group's director, told LifeNews.com in a statement.

:"In addition, the abortion rate (which represents the number of abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age) remains at 8, which is one of the lowest abortion rates in the nation," Lyons added. The national abortion rate is about 15 per 1,000 women.

:In the statement, Wisconsin Right to Life<ref>http://www.wisconsinrighttolife.org</ref> suggests that the abortions are on the decline because of its work and pro-life legislation the state has enacted and polls showing that younger Americans are more pro-life than previous generations. ...

:There are 14 abortions per 100 life births in Wisconsin, lower than the 24 per 100 live births nationwide.

:In 2006, there were 596 abortions on minors. Written consent (usually by a parent) was provided in 530 of these; the patient was an emancipated minor in 24; and a court granted a petition to waive the parental consent requirement in 42. There were no teens who got abortions after being victimized by sexual assault. ...

:Some 85 percent of the abortions were surgical and 15 percent involved abortion drugs, an increase of one percent over 2005.

== References ==

<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]

Civil Air Patrol

2008-05-14T14:45:46Z

Capercorn: MAJCOM changed things AGAIN!! Ughh...

The '''Civil Air Patrol''' is the civilian auxiliary of the [[United States Air Force]] that provides assistance to many government authorities, mainly in support and Search and Rescue capacities. It mainly works with the United States Department of Homeland Security, and local Law Enforcement agencies. The CAP's main missions consist of Emergency Services, Cadet Programs and Aerospace Education programs.

== External Links ==
*[http://cap.gov Official CAP website]

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Military]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2008-05-01T17:10:34Z

Capercorn: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?

2008-04-29T20:05:32Z

Capercorn: New debate.

{{debate}}

Being a member of the [[Civil Air Patrol]], I know the Flag Code pretty well. After skimming over it again today, I saw what may have been a breach of Section I, Title IV of the United States Code (Flag Code). I think that being a pro-American website, we should take care not to desecrate the Colors of the United States. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Link to section of Flag Code in question: [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/4/3.html]. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 16:05, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-04-29T19:55:58Z

Capercorn: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-24T03:27:43Z

Capercorn: /* YES! */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing a lot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Uni is from the latin unus meaning one, single, and verse comes from the latin versus and means line, verse, as in a verse of words. The meaning may have been liberally twisted by subsequent generations of people but the original latin meaning hasn't changed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Consensus says that Uni means one, pretty much anybody who ever learned anything about any Romance Language knows that. The Etymology of Verse says it comes from the Latin vertere, meaning "Turn Around." --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:27, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts
of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and
distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do
all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only
ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"}}
--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:30, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::::So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::ROFL! [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::''Darn it! You found us out. We pocket protecting, geeky scientists are actually just making up "empirical" evidence in order to manipulate society. We had it going so well until '''you''' had to stop the fun. Thanks.'' No really, Scientists are not trying to start a dictatorship. Alarmists and anti-consumerists are. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Since this evidently flew over a few heads let me site a recent example of how science gets hijacked. Man-made global warming that is sold as actual scientific fact. When in fact the only thing keeping it alive is the deep pockets of its benefactors. They even tried Nuremberg style rallies in order to gain supporters. Yep, I'm rolling on the floor over that one. The Kyoto Protocols didn't work so instead of it they infused massive funding to create an actual industry to market it with. Only one small problem though. Everyone isn't stupid to believe the marketing hype that doesn't face close scrutiny. No, it isn't the scientists creating the scientific dictatorship but it is rather their employers who control where the funding goes. This technique of using scientists for propaganda purposes isn't a new one. A fact that some people seem to be ignorant of too.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:26, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?

2008-04-24T03:18:49Z

Capercorn: Starting constructive debate

For those who don't know, Pres. Bush gave NASA a goal of Colonizing the Moon (Luna), in order to prepare for a manned mission to Mars. Should the United States, or Humanity in general, hold ourselves to the void of space? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

== Yes ==

I think we should. Earth (Terra) can only hold so many Humans, and we may soon reach that limit. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:18, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-04-24T03:15:10Z

Capercorn: /* Political debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of Conservapedia see Wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-04-17T19:03:23Z

Capercorn: /* That Old Double Standard */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:QED, Roopilots. Tirades like that do nothing for the kind of people who want to actively discuss their faith. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:15, 18 February 2008 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

::Uni is from the latin unus meaning one, single, and verse comes from the latin versus and means line, verse, as in a verse of words. The meaning may have been liberally twisted by subsequent generations of people but the original latin meaning hasn't changed.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:22, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, when religion tries to intrude upon science, it does so to the detraction of religion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:49, 18 February 2008 (EST)

{{cquote|Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts
of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and
distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience.
It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense
about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do
all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only
ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
- St. Augustine, "De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"}}
--[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 19:30, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

YEC casts God as either an intentional deceiver or at least a negligent deceiver.... that can not be true, science must guide us to the truth of God!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

::::So that we have a Scientific Dictatorship through the direction of empirical scientism. Knowledge must first be able to pass through the empirical bookkeeping systems to ensure only one type of methodology is used. In this way total control is applied to which knowledge is disseminated and which is suppressed. If it doesn't agree with certain criteria of the bookkeeper then it is discarded and marginalized. Conspirators of this Scientific Dictatorship are then able to exercise total control of all knowledge deemed acceptable for their followers to worship after. The Empirical misinformation system that is active today can be seen everywhere and at anytime in our society. Eugenics, Social Biology, Evolutionism, with the latest being the man-made global warming scam. The 'means' of the Scientific Dictatorship is knowledge while the 'end' being the total control of the society. This is where we are today.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:33, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::ROFL! [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 14:44, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::''Darn it! You found us out. We pocket protecting, geeky scientists are actually just making up "empirical" evidence in order to manipulate society. We had it going so well until '''you''' had to stop the fun. Thanks.'' No really, Scientists are not trying to start a dictatorship. Alarmists and anti-consumerists are. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:03, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Liberal bigotry

2008-04-17T18:55:26Z

Capercorn: Actually, it doesn't. Watch ur facts

'''Bigotry''' is the expression of [[hatred]] or [[aggression]] towards those who are different.
[[category:psychology]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2008-03-07T19:36:04Z

Capercorn: /* A Radical Alternative */

{{debate-politics}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2008-03-07T19:18:58Z

Capercorn: /* No */

{{debate-science}}

Post Your Thoughts

Just like to point out that there is no theory of Macroevolution. Macroevolution is just a discription of genetic drift over time to cause noticable genetic differences. It is very missleading to have this labeled as a theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

For my side (evolution), I have one site. Take a good long look at it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

== Yes ==

Arguments for * All life on Earth shares common ancestor

*All life on Earth shares common ancestor
#All life on Earth shares molecular features.
#*'''Counter:''' This is not a scientific argument for evolution. First, this argument says nothing about a *process* of evolution. It does not reveal any transitional forms between species, for examples. In fact, lots of DNA evidence tends to disprove transitions from one species to another. Second, there is no objective or scientific way to say one thing is like another. If you insist there is, then you'd have to agree that intelligent design is science also. Note, by the way, that all of Shakespeare's plays "share" similar features, but one play did not evolve by itself into another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#**'''Counter:''' Poor argument. Shakespeare's plays are not capable of reproducing on their own. Reproduction is one cornerstone of evolution that sets living things and nonliving things apart.
#*:::What DNA evidence disproves transitions between species?
##Same macromolecules (DNA, RNA, protein)
##Same monomers for those macromolecules (five nucleotides, twenty standard amino acids)
##Same chirality of molecules. DNA in all complex life forms is right-handed, research suggests[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9802E1DB1F3DF936A15751C0A9659C8B63] that left-handed DNA would work just as well.
###If life forms did not have common ancestors we would expect to see a fairly even distribution of left and right handed DNA.
##Genetic system:
##*Ribosome structure
##*tRNA structure
##*The universal genetic code (and slight deviations from it)
##*Information encoded in nucleotide polymers (DNA or RNA).
#Differences between organisms can be explained by known mechanisms of genetic mutation.
#*'''Counter:''' There has not been enough time for mutation to generate existing biological diversity.
#**'''Counter:''' Lateral gene transfer between viruses and bacteria to more complicated life forms has been proven to occur and can account for increased mutations over time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#**'''Counter:''' There has been enough time enough time to generate existing biological diversity.
#***'''Counter:''' The time argument doesn't help. Decay, scattering, extinction, defects, disasters, etc., all INCREASE over time. Besides, all mutations are harmful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:54, 21 December 2006 (EST)
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#*****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' inert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Additional Counter:'''Decay, scattering and defects are not part of the evolutionary theory. What proof is there that disasters increase over time? The increase of entropy in the universe is not even comparable to the process of evolution, which is the opposite of randomness. Evolution relies on natural selection, which as its name suggests, selects the best adapted organisms to reproduce, not random organisms.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Being seedless is harmful to the watermelon. The fact that it may be helpful to people in no way proves that being seedless is helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon. --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
#*****'''Counter:''' On the contrary, mutations such as this are beneficial. To take another example, the chance mutation that caused the Banana to come in to existence has helped a single tree spread it's genetic material to most of the globe. Taking a narrow view of what is an evolutionary benefit is to fundamentally misunderstand evolution. An adaptation that causes a plant to establish a symbiotic relationship with the dominant species can be more helpful to a plant's survival than, say, one that helps it spread its seeds wider in the local area.
#******'''Counter:''' Beneficial to humans yes, but detrimental to future evolution and genetic diversity of the watermelon species. --[[User:KarmicNoose|KarmicNoose]] 14:41, 24 March 2007 (EST)
#*******But natural selection does not select features that increase diversity in a population; it selects features that increase the odds of reproduction in an individual—and preference by an agricultural species greatly increases an individual's odds of reproducing.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
#****'''Counter:''' Ginger/red hair in humans is an example of a harmless, recessive mutation.--

NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
#*'''Counter:''' Mendel's findings were incomplete, and were ignorant of certain structures such as chromosomes, or processes such as mutation. The latter presents a perfectly viable way for an organism to receive genetic code not present in its parents.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 21:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

#*#The speed of evolution is measured by the [[w:Darwin (unit)|darwin]] (change in an organism's character by a factor of e per million years.) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#morphological_rates]
#*#Evolution in the lab can be as high as 200,000 darwins.
#*#As measured by the fossil record, the average evolutionary rate in the wild is 370 darwins.
#*#A rate of 400 darwins is capable of turning a mouse into an elephant in just 10,000 years.
#*No other (non-human) process has been observed to generate biological diversity.
#*Extensive biological diversity existed before humans had the ability to create new forms by molecular recombination.

#*'''Counter:''' The argument concerning rate of change assumes that biological evolution is described by a linear equation. However, observation and Mendellian genetics theory suggest that evolutionary change is better described by a rational function bounded by an assymptote. For example, it is relatively easy to crossbreed a pure bred dog so that you obtain a mutt or a nearly pure bred dog of another breed. However, it will take an infinite amount of time to entirely replace the traits of the original breed with those of the new breed- the graph of evolutionary change, with change on the y-axis and time on the x-axis, has reached a horizontal assymptote. The dog remains a dog.
-Chris J
#**'''Counter:'''Um, what? I'm a bit of a mathy person and have some background in genetics as well, and the above doesn't seem to be anything but an assertion dressed up in mathematical terminology. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:06, 13 February 2007 (EST)
#**'''Counter:'''If a DNA molecule was of infinate length this argument would stand. Since DNA has a finite length it is entirely possible to remove all 'Mutt' genes from a heredetory family of dogs with selective breeding over time. Because of recombinant DNA and meisis crossover it makes it unlikely to occur - but not impossible. Joshua Z is correct, the maths is wrong.

If you look at the forms of virtually every animal alive today, the early embryo stages are virtually identical. This shows that they evolved from the same ancestor. If you look at the limbs of a lot of animals, and even the limbs of fossils, they have virtually the same structure.

I find a surprisingly good argument supporting macroevolution is that of languages. For example, all modern Western languages are essentially derived from Latin. This is repeatedly indicated in the similarities of words between languages such as English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, etc. You could say that all languages are descended from Latin. Populations broke away from the "main" latin base, corrupting the original until, centuries later, we have dozens of unique languages that readily can be proven to have descended from Latin. The same basic principle applies to macroevolution. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is a poor argument, since German and English did not descend from Latin.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 19:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Not necessarily directly, but there are very similar grammatical structures and even entire words that are similar between the three languages (English, Latin, German)
[[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 15:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)]]

==No==

There is a theory of macroevolution, even though its own proponents deny it. Macroevolution is the theory that [[natural selection]] will create new species out of mutations, gene splicing errors and other natural phenemona, '''without''' any need for supernatural intervention.

The refusal to own up to the existence of the theory is the first suspicious thing (like Satan worshippers denying they worship Satan). The second suspicious thing is the use of all kinds of tricky '''illustrations''' and descriptions, instead of offering to show evidence.

Both are earmarks of [[Pseudoscience]].

On the other hand, it is for only a matter of religious faith to deny the theory. I certainly can't prove it's false, any more than its proponents can prove it's true. It's their faith against mine. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::'''Counter''': Except ''they'' have empirical evidence that is sufficient to explain. Where's yours? (Keep in mind that supernatural revelations are anecdotal evidence. Sorry). Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence, so it's actually their reason against your faith. [[User:Cthx]]

::::::'''Comment''': The reason that the 'proponents' of macroevolution do not own up to this theory is, in fact, because they are NOT proponents of this theory. It is actually CREATIONISTS who refer to this as 'macroevolution'. The 'proponents' of this theory simply lump both 'macroevolution' and 'microevolution' under one term - 'evolution'. The reason for this is quite simple - creationists admit that 'microevolution' occurs, as it has been proven to happen. Evolutionists say that 'macroevolution' is 'microevolution' continuing to happen for an extremely long time, so why use two different terms for the same thing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:28, 24 February 2008 (EST)

The bible makes it clear how the species came into existence, and it gives us the most logical explanation we have. Is there any point in denying it? [[User:GodisTruth|'''Truth''']][[User_talk:GodisTruth |is power]] 13:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::'''Counter''': Yes, in that the Bible is most likely wrong: it is a collection of texts and stories. How is it "logical" to have species appear out of no-where? What happens to the air that was there before the animals appeared? Doesn't this supernatural Genesis contradict all natural laws we observe? If anything, this seems to be illogical.[[User:Cthx]]

Actually Cthx, The Old Testament doesnt contradict any of the natural laws of the universe. In fact, the Bible states that God created the naturalistic principles working in the universe. Things that were writtne thousands of years ago that did not make sence before are barely starting to make sence now. 17 times in the Old Testament it says that God stretches out the heavens. Nobody knew what that meant before but now we see that the universe is expanding. He also says that he holds all things together and that he stopped creating. Well we know this now. That nothing can be created or destroyed and everything is being held together. Were not figuring out anything that God isn't already in charge of. A last note. Matthew 22:29 says, "Ye do error, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." Don't get upset however and become hard hearted and stubborn. Open your heart. "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Revelation 3:20) [[User:wapfeffer]]

:But Wapfeffer, all of the empirical evidence points torwards Evolution, and in science religious beliefs must be taken at face value. Science does not care what anybody believes, it just takes the availible info and comes up with the most logical explanation for said info. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:18, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Talk:Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?

2008-03-07T19:16:08Z

Capercorn:

No, it isn't true. That is why it is called a theory. Even after over a hundred and forty eight years it is still an unproven theory. Nothing found in any geological evidence as well as anything current or reproducible. Irreducibly complex biological systems is just one problem that evolution runs into. DNA doesn't, and has never been observed to write additional code. It loses some of its code sometimes, but that never causes a species to evolve into another. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is another one. It is that natural systems will degenerate when left to themselves over time. Will a machine eventually arise from a mound of rust? No, it won't, and never will. No matter how great is your belief in evolution.

Genetic drift over time that produces noticeable genetic differences is microevolution. Variation of traits within a species. The drift we notice is only that some genes that were recessive have become more dominant after a period of time. This is what Charles Darwin used as a basis to postulate a theory from. Yet it isn't evolutionary since it only shows the variation within a species available code. Nothing new is being added within the whole of species. Only that certain traits ensure better survival in different environments. Darker skin around the Equator is better protection against skin cancers and lighter skin where sunlight is scarce towards the north and south poles ensures better absorption of less sunlight. You can look at the variation within the Human race to see the evidence of how variation has ensured our survival across the planet. To subscribe to further defining of other races within the Human Race is pure racism. But that's another problem that evolution has helped perpetuate. Such is evident in the orginal title:

On The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection
or the
Preservation of Favoured Races
in the Struggle for Life
By Charles Darwin M.A.
Published in London:
by John Murray, Albemarle Street
1859
--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:01, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
--

:Roo, once again you show that you do not understand how science works. Theories are never proven true, they are proven false.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:37, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, once again you've proven how religion has affected the realm of science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 08:11, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::How is that? Please explain.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:37, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Darwin meant that species ([[homo sapiens]] sapiens, [[banana]] trees, etc...) could develop different races within their species and if these races were for example separated by a new ocean or mountain ridge, these races would start to diverge until new species are formed, we usually define an animal species by animals that can interbreed and have fertile offspring, although there are exceptions and it seems there often are no real boundaries between related species, they seem to overlap genetically, just as would be expected from evolution.

As for the whole "racists use evolution as an excuse" discussion: just because someone abuses a theory out of ignorance that theory doesn't become evil or untrue.
Is nuclear physics untrue because it helped create nuclear weapons?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:::I don't think the analagy between racism and physics worked out too good...--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:38, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually, people have used the story of Noah's Ark as an excuse for slavery, so the racism arguement works both ways, and cancels each other out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:16, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing

2008-02-11T19:30:05Z

Capercorn:

To save humanity, we should focus on the worst first. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:30, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

1) hunger 2) preventable disease 3) unsolved diseases like AIDS 4) natural resources 5) preventing war 6) poverty ..... 19) global warming 20) asteroid striking Earth.

1) overpopulation 2) preventing war 3) preventable disease 4) natural resource protection .... 19) maintaining American sovereignty over the world 20) asteroid striking Earth. 99) finding an extraterrestrial intelligent race that is broadcasting solutions to all these problems for any species that need them. My quick 0.02, arbitraged through the Euro. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've already been visited by an intelligent extraterrestrial with solutions to all these problems. But most reject the solutions, and question his identity. His name was [[Jesus]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
::Good one - ''touché''. I was thinking you were going to identify It as God. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:18, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I did. Jesus is God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:42, 9 May 2007 (EDT) (See details on talk page - [[User:Human|Human]])
::::When did Jesus talk about the Asteroid? Or overpopulation, and natural resource protection for that matter? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:30, 11 February 2008 (EST)

1) totalitarianism/world government 2) global warming 3) pandemic risk 4) US national debt 5) genocide [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:22, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) terrorism 2) Communism 3) genocide 4) Hunger/Poverty (not the government's job however)... 19) US national debt ..... 267) natural resources ..... 1,532) asteroid striking earth ..... 7,854,238) alien invasion 7,854,239) global warming. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:31, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) preventing gay marriage 2) preventing abortion 3) putting the 10 commandments in schools 4) convincing the global scientific community that evolution is false 5) defeating terrorism indefinitely and continuously 6) stopping liberals 7) keeping guns 8) stopping socialised health care 9) preventing environmentalist lies from damaging America's economy 10) making the speed of light more scriptural 11) abolishing public education 12) promoting conservative facts

1) Rejection of God. Solve that one and the rest would fall into place. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1)Prevent global warming, by finding alternative (read:wind, solar, hydrogen, and, if it ever appears, fusion) sources of energy.
2) Stop, and reverse, the deleterious effect that free trade and international repression has had on developing African and Asia countries.
3) Enshrine the [[UDHR]], the effective culmination of 12,000 years of thought from various religions and philosophies, into national law throughout the world. Give the UN a credible way of enforcing this which is independent of [[Russia|various]] [[USA|national]] [[China|interests]]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

::: Yikes, add mind control--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty (people with money tend not to go hungry). 2) Wider, deeper democracy in all countries. 3) Preventable disease. 4) Alternative energy sources. 5) Be generally nicer to each other. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 10:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

(obscenity removed - keep it clean and comply with the [[rules]])--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Poverty 2) Democracy by choice, not war, in all countries. 3) Cure as many diseases as possible 4) Alternative energy sources [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:09, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

1) Establish a democratic world government with a global military 2) Eliminate poverty (this should take care of preventable diseases as well) 3) Stabilize world population 4) Nuclear fusion (this should take care of the energy problem and pollution) 5) Be generally nicer to each other 6) Securing Earth against alien invasions or asteroids. [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

(I moved a lengthy discussion to the talk page under " Discussion regarding religion, evil, etc.", with the permission of the two principal discussers [[User:Human|Human]] 17:25, 13 May 2007 (EDT))

Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?

2008-02-11T19:24:42Z

Capercorn:

{{debate}}

If the White House went to a Democrat, would it be better (from a Conservapedian's prospective) for the Democrat to be Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama? [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 00:16, 30 January 2008 (EST)

----
Hmm... interesting debate topic. I'd rather have Obama than Hillary myself. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:12, 30 January 2008 (EST)

:That's a good question. I'm not quite sure what I think, but Hillary certainly ''much'' more political experience. ~ [[User:SharonS|Sharon]][[User talk:SharonS|Talk]] 06:11, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I'm voting for Obama myself...he's practically a Washington outsider. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:02, 10 February 2008 (EST)

== Joe Liberman ==

Yeah, I'd support him over any Democrat. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:24, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?

2008-02-11T19:14:45Z

Capercorn: /* No */

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-02-11T19:02:30Z

Capercorn: /* YES! */

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Actually, Universe comes from the old French "univers" which in turn comes from the latin "universum" which is a compound of unus (meaning one) and versum (meaning somthing rolled, changed). Therefore Universe literally means "everything rolled into one." Not single sentence. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:02, 11 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Biblical criticism

2008-02-10T16:31:49Z

Capercorn: as i stated earlier

== Dual-user Provenance ==
This is a dual submission of a work of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on CreationWiki and this article is based on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Biblical_criticism&oldid=80038 this version] of the [[CreationWiki]] article, which is entirely my work.

Biblical criticism

2008-02-10T16:31:28Z

Capercorn: /* Dual-user Provenance */ rm unencyclopedic author notes, moving to talk.

[[Biblical criticism]] is any examination of the [[Bible]] for accuracy, authenticity, authorship, dating, or anything else that bears on the Bible's reliability as a [[history|historical]] source against which one might legitimately judge other sources.

The traditions of the last century or more have divided Biblical criticism into two main areas, called the ''higher'' and the ''lower''. While the ''lower'' criticism (including textual criticism) deals with the provenance of the text and the faithfulness of the present text to the lost originals, the ''higher'' criticism deals with the heart of the Bible itself: whether it is, in fact, historical, and if not, exactly how ought one to read it.

== Higher criticism ==
The ''higher'' or ''historical criticism'' of the [[Bible]] (not the criticism of the Bible ''throughout'' history, but rather the criticism of the Bible ''as'' history) deals with whether the Bible is, or is not, a valid source of history. The German higher critic Johann Gottfried Eichhorn coined the term.<ref name=CathEn>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04491c.htm Biblical criticism (higher)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia (1908)</ref>

Higher criticism asks whether the Bible is consistent with extra-Biblical [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds and with what is known of the [[language]]s in which it was written. Inevitably higher criticism must face squarely the question of whether Divine inspiration exists or not, and whether supernatural causes or events are admissible or not. These can only be [[presupposition]]. For that reason, at least two divergent schools of thought have always existed in higher criticism. Their differences are irreconcilable, because one school believes that anything supernatural is to be rejected out-of-hand, and the other school is not so sure of that. These "non-rationalistic" thinkers tend to divide between [[Protestantism|Protestant]] and [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] schools of thought. Higher criticism ''also'' claims to examine the internal evidence of the Bible and whether certain parts of the Bible are properly consistent with other parts.

The combined problems detailed above militate against the various schools of thought ever agreeing on common principles or rules of evidence--a situation quite similar to that prevailing in the debate between [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] and [[creation]].

=== History of higher criticism ===
Arguably the first person to use the Bible seriously as a historical document, and to integrate the history it records with other recorded histories, was [[James Ussher]]. His work was so influential that for three and a half centuries most editions of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible carried top-margin dates derived from Ussher's magnum opus, [[The Annals of the World]].

[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]] includes<ref name=CathEn/> an excellent treatment of the full state of higher criticism until 1908. It shows that higher criticism, as such, began earlier than the Enlightenment. The [[Constantine]]-era bishop [[Origen]] holding, for example, that [[Paul]] was not the same man who wrote the Epistle to the [[Hebrews (book)|Hebrews]]. Origen's student [[Dionysius]] held on linguistic grounds that the man calling himself "John" who wrote [[Revelation]] was not the same man as the [[Apostle]] named [[John]]. Higher criticism contemporary to Ussher explored such questions as whether [[Moses]] was the true author of the first five books of the Bible, called the "Books of Moses" in the [[King James Version]].

Then in the early nineteenth century a group of [[France|French]] and [[Germany|German]] scholars began to test the Bible against other historical documents and [[Archaeology|archaeological]] finds. They drew their inspiration from the [[Rationalism|Rationalist]] school of philosophy and other schools of thought that developed during the [[Enlightenment]] period. But at that point the criticism of the [[Old Testament]] and the [[New Testament]] tended to have vastly different emphases, with Old Testament criticism centering on questions of language and competing historical records, and New Testament criticism directly attacking the Divinity of its Central Character, [[Jesus Christ]], and the authenticities of the various Letters of [[Paul]] and the general epistles of [[John]], [[James]], and others.

The claims made in the field of [[Assyrian chronology]], and specifically as regards alleged synchronies between [[Assyria]]n rulers and certain kings of the [[Northern Kingdom]], became popular toward the end of the nineteenth century. This is the criticism that informed [[Edwin R. Thiele]]'s thesis that the writers of the Kings and Chronicles books used reign synchronies and lengths that were incomplete.

=== Current state of higher criticism ===
Modern higher criticism (since 1908) is informed chiefly by the principle of [[atheism]]--the proposition that no such Person or Thing as [[God]] exists. By no coincidence, [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], one of the most prominent higher critics in the German school, was one of the two major philosophers (the other was [[Immanuel Kant]]) who provided the greatest influences on [[Karl Marx]], the originator of [[Communism]]. The no-God principle received further impetus in more modern times from [[Friedrich Nietzsche]], who famously said that "[[God]] is dead."

Since then, most higher-critical efforts have been directed at destroying the foundations, not only of the Divinity of [[Christ]], but also of the story of the creation of the world. This is the intellectual environment that allowed the widespread acceptance of the theory of [[evolution]] and all its corollaries, even by churches. Yet not all who reject the original creation story, as stated, are evolutionists. [[Old Earth Creationism|Old earth creationism]] takes as its central premise that the Biblical account, while not literal, has an enduring symbolic importance--and that in any case, classical [[Darwin]]ian evolution cannot adequately explain the "[[first cause]]s" of the [[universe]] or of life.

In 1994, a group of forthright atheists started the Journal of Higher Criticism<ref name=JHC>[http://www.atheistalliance.org/jhc/index.htm Journal of Higher Criticism] at the Atheist Alliance. Has multiple additional links.</ref> and billed it as "a forthright attempt - in a time of scholarly neo-conservatism - to hark back to the bold historical hypotheses and critical interpretations associated with the great names of F. C. Baur and Tübingen." The phrase "scholarly neo-conservatism" is probably an attempt to link an apparent renewal of belief in [[God]] with a resurgence of ''political'' conservatism in the [[United States]] that culminated in a sharp reversal-of-fortunes of the two major political parties in the Federal Election of 1994. This Journal ceased publication in 2003, but the original site is still an active domain and has a recent (2007) copyright notice.

== Textual criticism ==
The ''lower'' or ''textual'' criticism of the [[Bible]] starts with the premise that the Bible ''is'' reliable history. Unhappily, none of the original [[Hebrew]] texts of the [[Old Testament]] remain. (Even the [[Dead Sea scrolls]] do not qualify, though they come close.) The situation with the [[New Testament]] is arguably worse, in that no agreement has been possible as to which of the many manuscripts of various New Testament books is actually original. Hence, textual criticism strives to determine which copies of the Old Testament are the most faithful to the original, and which manuscripts of the New Testament are either original (if such can ever be found) or at least faithful and correct.<ref name=CathEnNT>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04497a.htm Biblical criticism (textual)] in the Catholic Encyclopedia</ref>

=== History of textual criticism ===
Again, possibly the first person to undertake any form of textual criticism for a practical reason was [[James Ussher]]. He needed a reliable text to serve as an anchor for a unified treatment of ancient history. Ussher rejected the [[Septuagint]] for various reasons, chief among which was that the Septuagint was a translation into a language foreign to that in which the originals were written, and that the translation was a work by consensus. (Its very name, which translates as ''Interpretation According to the Seventy'', so indicates.) Ussher selected the [[Masoretic Text]], which was an attempt by second-century [[Hebrew]] scholars to reproduce a text in its original language.

In addition to Ussher, the Royal Commission on Bible Translation, in the reign of King [[James I]] of [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], had to determine a proper text from which to produce a translation of the Bible into [[English]]. They worked largely from the Masoretic Text, but consulted the Septuagint occasionally when the meaning of the Hebrew was difficult to discern.

Textual criticism gained new impetus in the nineteenth century with the work of Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The questions they have raised remain today the subject of great and often bitter controversy.

==== The Old Testament ====
No modern scholar claims to have original texts of Old Testament books. [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] had them translated into the [[Greece|Greek]] of his day to produce the famous [[Septuagint]] at the [[Great Library of Alexandria]]. What happened to the originals from which the Seventy Interpreters worked has never been established. Tragically, much of the collections of the Great Library were lost in one or more fires that struck the Library at various times in its history. As a result, the New Testament writers quote the Septuagint, because that was all that was available.

The Masoretes would later correct that lack with their production of the [[Masoretic Text]]. That text remained for centuries the best extant [[Hebrew]] copy of the Old Testament. However, this text proved quite vulnerable to higher critics who doubted the authenticity or the dating of some of its books. Chief among these was the book of [[Daniel]], which some alleged to have been written after the fact.

In 1947, in the midst of the War for the Independence of the Republic of [[Israel]], came the discovery, at [[Qumran]], of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls|Dead Sea scrolls]]. These scrolls have largely backed up the accuracy of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, with rare exception.

Among the principles that aided the Masoretes (and presumably the [[Essene]] scribes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls) was the elaborate procedures that the original scribes had used. This included checksumming of each line and the insistence that the making of a single mistake required throwing out the entire scroll and starting over.<ref name=Williams>Williams, Fred, [http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm Meticulous Care in the Transmission of the Bible], retrieved March 25, 2007</ref>

==== The New Testament ====
The situation with the New Testament is much less settled, because no checksumming was ever done with any manuscript of any of its books. In 1611, King James' Royal Commission had available to it a [[Majority Text]], which may or may not be the same as the [[Textus Receptus]], of manuscripts of which more copies existed than any others. This largely included the [[Byzantine Text]] family of manuscript copies that, strikingly, seem to agree in every particular with one another.

But Westcott and Hort pointed out the existence of many more manuscripts, including the [[Codex Alexandrinus]] and the [[Codex Sinaiticus]], that disagree with the Majority Text in many key areas. Among the points of disagreement are:

* The authenticity of the ''Pericopa Adultura''<ref>{{Bible ref|book=John|chap=8|verses=1-11|version=NIV}}</ref>
* The person of the verb endings used in the Song of the Twenty-four Elders<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=KJV}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Revelation|chap=5|verses=9-10|version=NIV}}</ref>
* The true length of the Gospel According to [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]]

The reception of Westcott and Hort's has varied from cordial to hostile.<ref>[http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/Topics/Bible/Bible_Reliability.html The Reliability of the Bible Texts] at FoundationsforFreedom.net</ref> Many Bible defenders roundly condemn New Testament textual criticism, because they see in it the same kind of compromise of the truth that they decry on the part of the ''higher'' critics. This led the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia, in 1908, to despair of ever having a fully reliable New Testament in the [[Greek]] language of its original authorship.

== Footnotes ==
<references/>

== Additional References ==

== See Also ==
* [[Atheism]]

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Bible Study]]

Septuagint

2008-02-10T16:24:56Z

Capercorn:

{{Christianity}}
The '''Septuagint''' ([[Latin]] ''Interpretatio Septuaginta'', [[Greek]] ''Hermeneutica kata ton hebdomekonton'', literally "Interpretation According to the Seventy", abbr. LXX) is the first translation of the [[Old Testament]] of the [[Bible]] into any foreign language--and specifically the classical Greek that was spoken shortly after the death of [[Alexander the Great]].<ref>The [http://www.septuagint.net/ Septuagint] on the Web.</ref>

== History ==
Upon the death of Alexander in 332 B.C., one of his generals, named Ptolemy Lagus, took over Egypt as King [[Ptolemy I Soter]] (literally, "Ptolemy the Savior"). This king built, among other things, the [[Great Library of Alexandria]], which he intended to be a major research center throughout the [[Mediterranean]] region.

He continued the generally tolerant policy toward the [[Judaism|Jews]] that Alexander had observed since the priests at [[Jerusalem]] had surrendered to him. His successor [[Ptolemy II Philadelphus]] (r. 285-246 BC) continued that policy. In his effort to make the Great Library the best center of learning in the known world, Ptolemy Philadelphus sought to translate the Old Testament from [[Hebrew]] into Greek.<ref>[http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0840412.html Ptolemy II] at Infoplease.com</ref> Sadly, his staff found Hebrew to be a difficult language to understand, and were not sure of the meanings of several turns of phrase found in the Hebrew text. So Ptolemy appointed a team of seventy scholars, each fluent in Hebrew and in Greek, and assigned to them the task of translating the Hebrew text.<ref>[[Will Durant|Durant, Will]], ''The Story of Civilization, Volume 2: The Life of Greece''. ISBN 1567310133</ref>

The result is a work produced largely by scholarly consensus and was the primary translation in Palestine at the time of Jesus. The [[Gospels]], [[Paul]], [[James]], [[Peter]], [[Jude]], and the author of the [[Hebrews (book)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] quoted from the Septuagint often in their respective writings.

The Septuagint contains the thirty-nine [[Biblical canon|canonical]] books of the Old Testament, but also contains the books called the [[Apocrypha]], which are considered non-inspired, and hence non-canonical, by most [[Protestantism|Protestant]] denominations. The Apocrypha are considered canonical by the [[Roman Catholic Church]] and the Orthodox communities, and are included in Catholic Bibles.

== Objections to the Septuagint ==
Any translation is automatically suspect, if only because of differences in grammar and idiom between the source and target languages. However, the later Jews, especially after the failure of the [[Simon bar Kochva]] rebellion, determined never to accept anything that had a non-Jewish influence. Therefore, since midway through the second century AD, Jews have used Hebrew texts. The [[Masoretic Text]], which was put together around 900 A.D., is based upon these earlier Hebrew translations and is the text that is used today both for those who read Hebrew, and for translating to other languages.

Saint Jerome used the Septuagint as the basis of the Gallican Psalter and the book of Job of the [[Latin Vulgate| Vulgate]]. After more than a decade he decided the Septuagint was too fraught with mistranslations to be acceptable. At the beginning of the fifth century AD Jerome used only copies of biblical books in Hebrew and in some places Aramaic.<ref>http://www.ntcanon.org/Vulgate.shtml</ref>

[[James Ussher]], who made himself an expert on [[Semitic]] languages, concluded that the Septuagint contained errors of translation, and even errors of fact, that he considered critical and fatal to his purpose of determining a unified chronology of the world. For that reason, he rejected the Septuagint in favor of the Masoretic Text.

In 1947, ancient copies of Hebrew texts in scroll form turned up at [[Qumran]]. These "[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]" were written over various times, but dated back to the time of Jesus and before. This was a monumental find as it pushed back the time of the earliest known Hebrew text by almost 1000 years and was still a few hundred years earlier than the earliest surviving Greek text. The scrolls vindicate the accuracy of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text which were surprisingly accurate for the large amount of time that had passed. In those cases where there were differences, the Septuagint was more accurate overall. Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts together vindicate the prophecies of [[Jesus Christ]], because they render any conspiracy to write "prophecies after the fact" temporally impossible.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Bible Versions]]

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2008-02-09T03:07:04Z

Capercorn: /* Backwards */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll have to call you on that, Ed - it's true that unguided evolution would be essential to an atheist worldview, but evolution doesn't necessarily deny the existence of God. It merely explains a world without God's active involvement at a biological level. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:22, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:The Bible says that God created life in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Any belief other than this is anti-Christian, and therefore atheistic. [[User:BornAgain|BornAgain]] 17:37, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ed, you are correct in saying that noone can survive intellectually without an answer to those questions. The thing is that us atheists do have satisfactory answers to those questions. And the planet Earth is so hospitable to life because ''life evolved to suit the Earth''. Regardless of what Earth actually turned out to be, life would have evolved to suit it.

::BornAgain, without meaning to be rude that is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. What about Hindus? They are definately not atheists however they have a different creation story to you. It involves gods, so how is that an atheistic belief? [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 9:52, 27 June 2007

*'''Yes'''. Amen to that, bro. Atheism and [[homicide]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:49, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

:I feel I have to disillusion you over religious scientists. Out of the two academically highest fellowships of scientists in the USA and Great Britain only 7% are religious. Unfortunately as well, there is no way to really believe in god and science at the same time. Science proves that the bible is wrong on many counts, and to believe in science you must accept that the bible is wrong on so many things. How then can you accept that god exists considering that the only evidence for his existences is proven to be a mess of falsehoods and folklore? Simply, you cannot. The reason is because religion was created by humans as a way of explaining how they came to be and where they are going. Now science is better at explaining these things yet people insist that religion is true or that religion is more important then science. Until these people are disillusioned of religion then scientific progress will be hindered and humanity will stagnate. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:35, 8 June 2007

Bolly, you actually need to crack your Bible open, assuming have ever read it, and read what it says. For example, In Job, God mentions (or I think it was God) streams in the seas. Science did not even know that such things existed until recently. Evolution may be a way of explaining where you are going in this lifetime, but it is not a promising or comforting thought. Most of evolution is based on opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. Look through any textbook. "We believe...", "perhaps", "scientists assume/think," etc. It is all hype. Watch any serious creation video, and they raise very interesting questions. For example (I am going to have to write something, this is getting exciting!)

1. The Big Bang can not have formed the universe, because mathematically it is impossible. If you add up the estimated masses of all planetary bodies, and compare it with earth's mass and gravity, the speed neccesary for particals to leave that small of a region would approach light-speed. Black holes are a example of this. How often do we see exploding black holes?

2. The chances that information can come from non-information to form life is astronomical. We all know and love the illustration about the airplane being assembled in a junkyard with the components therein. While I forget the exact the exact figure, one major scientist theorized that the chances that one E. Clori bacteria would form from soup was one chance in 10 with many BILLION zeros following it. That means that said bacteria would have to have several succesful mutations per year in order to evolve into a human.

I could keep on going here, but I will let others join in

In Christ
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:09, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:In reply I have to say ComputerWizard, you need to study the theory of the Big Bang, assuming you have ever read that. The Big Bang theory does not say that the entire mass of the universe started at one point in space and has spread out ever since. It says that ''space itself'' has expanded from that point. The particles in it did not move however they did move away from each other due to the expansion of space. One reasonably good metaphor is a balloon with dots on it. When the balloon is blown up the dots move away from each other, although they do not have any of their own velocity.

:Yes the airplane in the junkyard. That is in fact an argument ''against'' your position, not for it. How do you explain how God came to be? Surely the chance of nothing forming into one obviously complex creature impossible? On the other hand, it is possible for the primordial soup to form into proteins and highly simple forms of proto-life. Of course soup cannot form into E. Clori bacteria, because that bacteria is quite complex in comparison to what it has evolved from.

:Watching a very serious creationist video does raise some very interesting questions. "How much research have these people actually done on this subject?" "Where is their proof?" "Do they honestly believe such absolute garbage?" I feel exaclty this way after any kind of creationist video/book/talk. Yes the words "scientists thinkg/assume..." appear in textbooks. Yet why do they believe it? Because the evidence is strongly in favour of their position. They don't accept the Bible or the Koran as a source of evidence. In fact if someone did quote the Koran as a source of evidence then the christian community would be in uproar! But when it's the Bible, it is all "Yes it is very accurate and believable" when really it is just as bad as the Koran.

:Admittedly the theory of evolution is not as comforting or promising as the religious ideology however that doesn't make it any less true than it is. There are far more unpleasant truths that may be confronted in life and they are no less true just because they are distasteful. Personally I find it quite refreshing and stimulating to think that we are the result of a complex series of reactions, mutations, nuclear collisions and so on, as it means that we are indeed very special and unique and that we are perfect for what we evolved to do, not what a creator designed us to do. Although I highly doubt that I will change your mind, I do hope that you consider these points fairly and maybe I will. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:04, 14 June 2007

::I've been watching show after show preaching that the Evolutionary Theory is based on scientific fact without proceeding to show any. I ask myself if anyone honestly believes such absolute garbage? Why? Because their Humanist religion requires it. Judeo-Christians have archaeological, geological, as well as scientific studies and research that back up the historic record of the Christian Old and New Testaments. As well as prophetic events that have come to pass or are happening now. Yet people will still reject facts as they are presented to them and attribute these things in conformance to their own world view. So what? The Neo-Cains will continue to do whatever pleases themselves. It is their place in history to continually repeat it again, and again.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:00, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Roo, your whole paragraph could be taken as completely for evolution if you switched some words around. Replace evolutionary theory with creationism, humanist with christian, Judeo-Christians with scientists, 'back up' with disprove and then it makes perfect sense and is an accurate reference to todays situation. There is plenty of scientific facts that support evolution. Try reading "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. It isn't perfect but it is very convincing. Try all the books and scientific papers that have ever been published in support of the theory. How can such a theory be accepted by the vast majority of biologists if it was false or was not supported by evidence?

There are many many problems with the Old and New Testaments historical records. There are events described in there that either did not happen or happened at a different time altogether. The Sumerian civilisation invented the first writing and recording and that started at over 7000 years ago. How do you account for that in your young earth theory? As for the 'prophetic events', where are they? Please give me examples because I am yet to see any. People will reject facts because they don't conform to their world view, it happens all the time in the USA in creationist churches and homes and it saddens those of us who search for truth in these times. Please look at your facts before presenting the same tired old trojan horses. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 10:56, 20 June 2007

::Ditto for you. Thanks for making my point. This is why there is the argument to teach both points of view. Also, your problems understanding the historical records of the Old and New Testament isn't a valid one since it is politically biased along ideological lines. This also saddens those of us that seek the truth through His Word.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:55, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

1Living things vary
2Ofspring resemble their parents
3Not all ofspring survive
4Some variations increase the chance or amount of ofspring

Therefore living things will change in such a way as to have more ofspring.
If noone has explained this to you then you need better teachers. It is also known as evolution. -Sam
P.S. fix my description if it is wrong. I'm doing what I remember from bio class.

My answer is also '''NO'''. The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, but does not answer the question about the meaning of life or answer if God exists (no scientific theory can). God could create living organisms through evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc.). It is true that some supporters of evolutionary theory use this as an argument against the existence of God, but from methodological point of view they are wrong. Among the evolutionists there can be both theists, deists and atheists. The official statement of the [[Catholic Church]] and many Protestant Churches allows evolutionary theory. [[User:Jasra|Jasra]] 19:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

==Neither==
I don't think that the Theory of Evolution cares.[[User:Cthx]]
:Hahaha, good call. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:27, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The Theory of Evolution may or may not promote atheism.
One thing for Christians to consider though is that God could have started the evolutionary chain and used that to create rather than creating directly.
The important factor is that God put the first "spark", etc.
Look at the Wedding Feast at Cana...
He made 6 large 10 gallon pitchers of wine.
God is extravagant and awe-some in his creation. (Extravagant in the sense that he does things large and big; after all he did create a huge amount of galaxies and we're the only life discovered so far...)
He could easily use evolution, as a grandiose plan, which would be totally in his character.

-reporres
i definitely agree with you that god created the theory of evolution. i mean i believe in god i just don't think all of this appeared randomly i think he created us with the theory of evolution gradually

==Backwards==
Since atheism or non-theism existed long before the theory of evolution then it would have to be that atheism promotes the theory of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:39, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

No, it is scientists (see is gravity liberal or conservative). It leads to atheism because it provides a non-theistic explanation for design.

:Incorrect! The Theory of Evolution only states that over time, members of a population will change over time to be more suited to their environments/reproduction. One great example are the Eskimo people. Because Eskimos live in cold climates, they have evolved to grow large noses, so that air has more time to warm before reaching the lungs, thus making breathing easier. Creationists disagree with the ''Evolutionary Model'', which is based on this Theory, in addition to the fossil record, radiocarbon dating and genetic studies. The theory of Evolution therefore is NEUTRAL on this point. Don't get angry. Your anger only leads to the inevitible HEAT DEATH of the Universe happening sooner. Stop. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 22:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-02-09T02:52:34Z

Capercorn: /* Other */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-02-08T02:57:36Z

Capercorn:

{{debate}}
The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

==NO!==
Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)
:But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
::The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
:::You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced ''one'' testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:::Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)

::::I can tell you that salvation from spiritual death only comes from accepting that Yeshua Messiach, the Son of God, already died for your sin and conquered death. I also do not presume the role of God, since He has already given His entire message through His chosen Hebrew people whose homeland is Israel. The whole world is pretty aware of that, aren't they? No biology degree necesary to understand it unless you wish to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes. So go ahead, take the red pill Neo!--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)
:::::And I am not saying that you are wrong. Christ is Lord. you did ask "Theistic-Evolutionists receive salvation from what?" From that it sounded that you stated that belief in Creationism was a prerequisite for Salvation. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

Ah do you reckon we can get back on topic? Do you think that young earth creationists are discouraging others from becoming christian because people they know consider YEC's to be a laughing stock? That has nothing to do with whether evolution or ID is right or wrong, falsifiable or non-falisfiable. Thanks. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 14:02, 22 December 2007
:Thanks, I would like to clarify what [[User:Bolly|nice person who posted above me]] said: This is not a debate about if Evolution is correct or not, it is asking if potential converts to Christianity are being detered by YECpov-ists. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 23:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)

==YES!==
Young Earth Creationists do indeed detract others from the faith - of Evolutionism. Here is also a warning to those who don't want to believe in the inerrant Word of God from Genesis to Revelations within the Judeo-Christian Bible: Evolutionism view is the complete opposite stance from an intelligently designed universe by a Creator. Hence why we call it universe, or single(UNI) sentence(VERSE) from which it was created. Evolutionism and the Young Earth Creation both require a religious viewpoint. The laughingstocks are those willingly ignorant of these facts, Pastor Adams. Christians who believe in Evolutionism and therefore the Humanist religion are actually apostates, or false believers. They have already renounced their faith and embraced the nemesis of Judeo-Christianity. A Created Young Earth and Evolutionism are polar opposite beliefs. You can only pick one side or the other where you will stand, and you certainly can't have both unless your just playing politics. Which is maybe what people such as Pastor Adams have chosen to become.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:44, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Yeah, I would say that YEC deters people from Christianity. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 19:42, 11 January 2008 (EST)

:{{remove personal remark|MakeTomorrow, thanks for making my point even more valid.}}--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:49, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::{{remove personal remark|Thank you for failing to utilize basic cognitive abilities.}} --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:11, 12 January 2008 (EST)

I would say yes, it does. While theories such as evolution and the Big Bang are taught in the public education system, the contrast with YEC is too stark and non-YEC tends to win. YEC apologists essentially claim that any scientific theories that conflict with the literal Biblical account must be wrong, which is where the conflict arises. Contrast this with apologists for OEC and you will find more compatibility with their religious beliefs and mainstream consensus science.

However, it should be noted that non-literal Biblical interpretation can also have negative effects on faith. While the arguments for YEC are fairly straightforward (simplified: what the Bible says is an accurate historical account and is the last word in any argument), the OEC enterpretation is theologically much more complex. This makes it more difficult to understand for the layman and subsequently faith can suffer if the opposing scientific theories are clearly promoted.

So, I'm not sure if YEC has an overall negative effect on faith. I think it might do in Europe where evolution, old earth, the Big Bang, etc. are almost universally accepted. A sudden campaign by mainstream religious leaders to push YEC would probably be met with derision and faith might be undermined. In the US, however, where YEC is comparatively common and different Christian sects are more diverse and visible, it might be considered yet another "Pick & Mix" option of their faith that can be accepted or discarded depending upon one's scientific education and preacher. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:36, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:We need an article comparing (1) [[Evolutionism]], (2) [[Old Earth Creationism]] and (3) [[Young Earth Creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:44, 12 January 2008 (EST)

::I would accept that, Ed, if the term Evolutionism wasn't often used by YE Creationists to equate belief in evolution (and other scientific theories) with any other religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:00, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:I just now wrote [[Evolution and creation]]. Sorry if you don't like the terms [[evolutionism]] and [[evolutionist]]. I am using them without prejudice to indicate support for (or supporter of) the naturalistic [[theory of evolution]]. I hope the context can make clear whether any specific partisan "equates" that support with "belief in religion". [[Link title]]

::Sure, Ed. Just to clarify, I don't dislike the term. I dislike the way the term is often used by YECers to equate belief in evolution with religion. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:19, 12 January 2008 (EST)

:Hmm. That probably leads to another topic like [[Debate:Is belief in evolution equivalent to belief in religion?]] I hope to see you there. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:37, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I have left my mark upon it :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:03, 12 January 2008 (EST)

An example of where YEC ''might'' detract others from the faith is evidenced in CP's very own discussion on the Theory of Evolution. See [[Talk:Theory_of_Evolution#What_if...3F|here]]. Two Christians are having a fairly acrimonious discussion over who is right, a Young Earth Creationist or a evolution-believing Roman Catholic. Phrases such as "Your god used millions of years of death and suffering to produce man." and "Hardly the work of a just and benevolent deity." This must be one of the most damaging aspects of YEC. It's dogmatic and fundamentalist, essentially claiming that if you believe in anything older than a young earth, or evolution or the Big Bang, or if you don't read the Bible literally, then you are not a true Christian. That will not only challenge the faithful but make it much harder to convince non-Christians that there's any merit in Christianity at all. Debate is one thing. Dogmatic accusations of heresy are another. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:53, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==That Old Double Standard==
This whole debate perfectly frames a basic problem with both sides of the same coin of YEC and ET(Evolutionism). It is no small wonder that the problem lies with the Evolutionists. Their refusal to acknowledge that their total faith in Evolutionism belies the fact that it is religion they profess. This isn't surprising either. The foisting of the Humanist religion onto western societies advances without it having to even identify itself in a forthright manner. Nonetheless it is a religous movement whose adherents have used Evolutionism to extoll itself with. Nowhere has Evolutionism been proclaimed as a scientific fact except by those who religiously profess it. But when real scientific proof is demanded, these facts evaporate into thin air. Both YEC and ET require faith in order for them to be upheld. So when the question comes it is dependent upon which religion are you hailing from? Unfortunately it seems that there is an assumption made when religion and faith are used that is based on prejudice and ignorance. I can only request it that some presumptions be re-evaluated instead of the invocations that my religious views are right and yours aren't conundrum of that old double standard line. That is that neither one can stand without taking their polar opposite religious view first. Well, that ain't gonna happen so go ahead and continue your religious war against each other.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:37, 13 January 2008 (EST)

:I simply don't agree with that at all. Yes, there may be plenty of secularists/humanists who treat their belief system as a faith - that they can't even in principle believe in anything else because it conflicts with their beliefs that it is impossible for God to exist.

:But that is not a majority view, in my experience, of people who believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

:To repeat my illustration I made above, most people who accept the "evolutionist" theories are religious - Christians, Jews, whatever. Almost all Christians in Europe, for example, are so-called "evolutionists". This must surely preclude belief in evolution and associated theories from being a religion.

:And these theories change. YEC, as a faith position, doesn't change. The ultimate evidence for it is an unchanging literal interpretation of the Bible. Scientific theories, while often protected more than they should be, do change through application of the scientific method.

:So, while I accept that there are various militant atheists who profess belief in "evolutionism" and use it to attack religion and are therefore in some ways as religious as the "religionists" they are attacking, most people who accept the theory of evolution and the Big Bang do not fall into that category. Indeed, they are more likely to be religious than atheist. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:08, 13 January 2008 (EST)

::The majority view? I'm not concerned with the mob rule mentality of any professional culture of peers. Never did I buy into the 'that everybody else believes it so it must be true' equation. True scientific endeavor shouldn't be worried by world opinion polls but only in the truth. That after some evidences have been proven false they continue to be taught in childrens school textbooks as scientific fact is unacceptable. Evolutionism as well the Big Bang Theory have both been dead for some time now and are only being kept alive by those having the faith equal to some of the most ardent Evangelicals. But I wasn't expecting any agreement on religious points of view. Whether they be from either of the two polar opposite religious views that dominate the scientific community. The major hurdle is to whether one understands what constitutes a non-theistic or theistic religious viewpoint. Then the double standard would disolve. This is a point that some will never concede to while holding onto the commanding heights of their professions and the money keeps pouring into their pockets.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

:::My comment on the majority view was in relation to the majority of people who accept evolution and the Big Bang are also religious, therefore "Evolutionism" cannot be a religion (according to my previous argument of exclusivity).

:::I don't know what you mean by evolution and the Big Bang being dead. Whatever your views on them they are the scientific consensus in their respective fields. That is not is dispute. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:04, 14 January 2008 (EST)

::::That's my point of being a consensus. Not to everybody. It is based on a faith in it since it still, since 1859, has not been scientifically been proven. Science, and not faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:14, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:::::Proof is actually an alien concept in empirical science. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 07:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::This also leads to another debate, [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]. Thought I should point this out. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:57, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?

2008-02-08T02:45:32Z

Capercorn: /* Transference */

[[Image:Brainradio.gif|thumb|right|200px|"[http://www.funtrivia.com/playquiz/quiz123084e194a8.html I must kill Frank Drebin]" ]]

"Coercive Interrogation" can refer to a number of methods currently being used in the War Against Terror. Some are "minor"(e.g. sleep deprivation), others "major" (e.g. waterboarding, physical abuse). Sometimes they are used to extract immediately vital information, sometimes for less immediate needs.
Where do Christian values intersect with these practices?

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12. Not consistent with waterboarding unless ye would that men should waterboard you. No exceptions made for hypothetical situations in which waterboarding someone would prevent a greater evil. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's all done with mind control through brain chip implants and nowadays. We've come along way since old fashioned waterboarding. And that stuff was never needed, anyway. Heroin in your breakfast Cornflakes does the trick, they'll sell their own mother for another bowl of Cornflakes. Most of this stuff you read about waterboarding is just disinformation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Is this a joke? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==No==

I just can't picture Jesus beating someone up to make them confess, or piling up naked prisoners and take a picture of it.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

All I could think of when I read the question was... "forty lashes". Although, I guess, they weren't asking questions, they were trying to get away with not executing him for the Pharisees purposes of silencing him. How can anyone even mildly versed in the stories about Jesus even think this could be a debate? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:49, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Get people scared enough, and they can rationalize [[Holocaust|ANYTHING]], as long as it's being done to someone outside their [[Monkeysphere]]. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 02:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Transference==
This is not even relevant for argument. Christian values are inapplicable with coercive interrogation. As unrelated to Christian values as using a bayonet on someone or flying a civilian airliner into a building full of civilians. What is being attempted here is just another attempt to attribute coercive interrogation with Christian values. Maybe we can give the Christian value attribute to ritualized decapitation, mutalization, use of human shields (non-combatants). But tell me honestly, which values did you use when someone came to murder you and your family because their leaders ordered them too? Of course there weren't any exept the value of your life over your would be killers. It is only those that hold a hatred for Christianity who will use a war that someone else is waging to devalue it. It is absolutely just another way to make political rants about two things that someone has absolutely no knowledge about. This propaganda technique is known as TRANSFER (Institute for Propaganda Analysis, 1938). This technique of trying to attribute something negative to an apposing religious view is only too common in the religion debate category and usually with all of the usual suspects.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:09, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I do not see anyone arguing "Christian values support torture" or even "Christians torture".... seems to me that the question under discussion is "''ought'' Christians support torture" -- and the answer immediately presents itself, '''''Thou shalt not!!''''' for "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." Matthew 25:40.... it is better that we should allow ourselves to be the recipients of torture than to inflict it upon another, better that we should allow ourselves to be murdered than murder another.... for the torture of another is a sin that will not be washed off our hands, and those that condone it, in their hearts, words, or acts, are as guilty and as condemned as those who beat, burn, and humiliate, no matter the "value" of the information sought!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:06, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::The debate question is whether coercive interrogation is consistent with a certain ideology. Meaning are the two compatible with each other? Nothing about torture is being mentioned here, by the way. Let's not misdirect on the topic of discussion. Also that Matthew 25:40 has nothing to do with the application of coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war is only proving one of my points perfectly. Make sure that your not wanting to sin isn't an act of sedition that causes others to suffer for it. I hope you'll see the value of this information and to apply it accordingly.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:41, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::What you call "coercive interrogation techniques used to save lives during a time of war" are nonetheless "coercive interrogation techniques" (and if we are not talking about torture, then what do we mean?).... if someone were to demand that you renounce your faith and blaspheme against the name of God, and threatened to kill your entire family if you refused to do so, what would you do? [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:04, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::::I would've declared a war against terror on them. Oh, darn it, someone already beat me too it. I hate it when I have to make the same point over and over again. Look up 'coercive interrogation techniques' so that you will be able to tell the difference between coercion and torture. Also the differences between military combatants and religious marterdym would also be something to make a distinction between. Historically we haven't reach the point where we don't have to learn war no more.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:19, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::Besides, in that line Jesus was reffering to the poor. Not Terrorists who want to kill us. Besides who is ''really'' at fault The inhuman terrorist who desires the destruction of all that we Americans hold dear (and/or Americans), or the Intelligence Officer who seeks to prevent Terrorist attacks by any means necessary. I believe that in this case, the Ends surely justify the means. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:45, 7 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:Why the Bible

2008-02-08T02:37:13Z

Capercorn: /* 2Nihilism */

==Nothing==
There is no evidence that the Bible is more trustworthy than any other piece of literature. The Bible is merely a fictional novel which has traditionally been believed and baselessly seen as the infallible word of God for hundreds of generations.
-Helios

What idiot puts page-long geniologies in a novel??!! Whether the bible is true or not (as I know it is) the ''authors'' seemed to think it's true. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 07:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. I think it was made by some men wanting to show people morals and values, like Aesop fables.

While some Biblical events may be confirmable by more scientific-based types of knowledge, belief in most of the Bible is contingent on faith. Nothing more, nothing less. Take that for what it's worth. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 19:44, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

"Take that for what it's worth."-Ooooo... I get a free Bible. -Helios

I will watch this discussion and see when it gets deleted. There seems to be a concerted effort at policing even these debate areas. [[User:Seekcommon|Seekcommon]] 19:34 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... if we consider the New Testament as Bible 2.0, then would the Koran be Bible 3.0 or Bible 2.1? And where does this leave the Book of Mormon? 4.0? 3.1? 2.2? 3.1.1? --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 07:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Well since Christianity actually branched off of Judaism the '''Old''' Testament would be v2.0 -Helios

The bible has been put together by hundreds of authors, over the course of around 900 years, and has subsequently been translated (several times), re-written and "improved" by many other hundreds of contributers and writers since. To put any kind of significance upon it at all is at best misguided and at worst plain idiotic. That is not to say that there are some good messages in there, however the majority is just plain weird. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 21:02, 19 April 2007

You guys are right, the bible is total garbage.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 23:01, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

==2Nihilism==
I know the Bible to be the true Word of God because I have studied it for decades. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It just betrays their ignorance and illiteracy. It is readily apparent that some of the ridiculous statements being made here are thinly disguised examples of religious bigotry. Every one of the statements denouncing the Bible as being the Word of God are false, out of context, and total garbage. I see no serious discussion here but only an adolescently motivated hatefest against Judeo-Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:31, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
::Roopilots6, you mind as well just give this up. The people you are debating with are nothing more than hard-core Christ haters.[[User:Bohdan|Sysop-Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 15:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not writing it for them. It's for everyone else that reads it. Just so people can see the difference between nihilists and everyone else.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:12, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
This is a typical comment by a brainwashed Christian zealot. They always say how accepting they are of other people. Until any discussion comes into play questioning the bible or their faith. Its a silly book written by some desert nomads and has no basis guiding todays societies and norms. If Jesus could cure blind people...why are people blind? And to say the earth life was created 5K years ago has not facts to support it. Face it we all are a byproduct of algae

I would agree that this arguement is somewhat one sided. I personaly believe that the bible was written by the gretest scolars ever or by beggers, if it provides some sense moral and comfort for people then its worth a read. Even if your not a christian it still has some good morals and is probably worth a read. .[[User:Concretemuncher|Concretemuncher]]

:I personally hold to the idea of limited Biblical Inerrancy, however most of the stories in it are based on '''History''' (although frequently changed by author bias, or changes during the oral tradition). The Authors did not intend on writing a simple novel. The wrote what they believed as Truth. Even though modern science calls the historic, geographic, and scientific statements into question, it still provides what should be common sense morals and ideas. It shows a loving God who cares for us, desires us to be good, not a people hating "Volcano" god. I have gotten something out of it, ideas about life, and thanks to my Jewish friends, humor (Apparently the OT is riddled with Yiddish humor). That's my rant. I dare you to counter it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:37, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?

2008-02-08T02:26:02Z

Capercorn: /* No duh! */

== Worse ==
I personally think that games are getting worse as they improve. Enhanced graphics allow game makers to make suggestive, and even pornographic images. That's a moral argument, here's a differant side. I was playing Star Wars Republic Commando on my friend's Xbox. And that thing was so hard, it wasn't even like a fun challenge. You had to walk around as a clone trooper using one joystick and with the other you had to aim the clone troopers gun. This sort of gameplay coupled with a first person view of the game(rather than just a objective which I perfer most of the time) made the game nearly impossible. I found similar gameplay on Halo, although that seemed slightly easier.

Double Edge

Pornographic images? Apparently someone has never played "Custer's Revenge."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Dude Custer's revenge, the graphics were so dated, you were looking at pixesl, woo woo. I've never played it but c'mon. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 09:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::There are some Japanese video games that are basically rape simulators.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 21:11, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And they also gave us ''Boong-Ga Boong-Ga''... --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Graphics isn't the limiting factor for porn in games. Graphics help a bit, true, but there is so much that could be achieved with plotline, dialog and text. The only reason for the rise in sexual games is that there is now a great enough demand for them to be profitable. - BornAgainBrit.

They get worse because the devoloper is forgetting why we geeks play video games in the first place. The complexity contributed to the world of gaming is nice, but it's removing from the central core of what gaming is all about. Most of us play video games as a way to excape reality and fit ourselves into another world, to control what goes on. As games become more complex, it's coming to a point where we are just moving a pretty picture. Sure it looks nice, but the quality of the games begin to lack. [[User:Dfairlyxed13:Dfairlyxed13]]

:Geeks are a niche market. Loyalty is nice, but at the end of the day, the geeks will till be there anyway. Anything that they can do to expand their base, they'll do.

In a word, repetitive. Back in the earlier days of gaming, production costs were low. Anyone could make a half-decent game as a hobby, and producing even a big title was possible with a team of ten full-time developers on a budget of a few hundred pounds to a few tens of thousand at most. But with the fancy graphics demands now, making a commercially successful game is '''expensive''' - it takes voice actors, and CG experts, sound artists, writers, all kinds of specialists in different fields. Hundreds of them. Then the marketing - with the competition for shelf space, it needs major contacts and advertising. It all comes up to a budget of millions. Because of this very high production cost, there is much less innovation. What publisher or developer would risk investing that much money in something that they were not confdent would succeed? So we are not in the age of sequals and franchises, and of very tight genre-typing. Nothing new is tried, its too expensive to risk. Just a lot more of the same. The situation could be compared with the effect of the hollywood blockbuster on movies, where the demand for special effects and marketing raised production costs to the point where no studio would invest large amounts of capital in something that hadsn't been shown to be profitable already. - BornAgainBrit.
I feel that it is not the graphics or the story line that makes recent games worse, but merely the overall rise in complexition of the controlls. I believe that this takes away from the main storyline. However Halo 3 is excellent.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 20:05, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

I'd have to say "worse." Games used to be about the games, not the graphics and special effects. When you concentrate on such things, the games lack quality, and this has shown.
Gone are the days of games like "Police Quest," "Adventure" (Crowther/Woods), "Zork," "ZZT," and "Rogue" (Toy/Lane). Those games, though having little or no graphics, had great stories and great programming, and were often very replayable.
Another great thing about older games is the "ma-and-pa" feel of a game being designed by one or a few people, often who become visible and well-known due to their games. The same thing can even be said about certain smaller companies such as Nullsoft (original developers of Winamp) and Netscape, which had the same "ma-and-pa" feel prior to being bought by AOL/Time Warner. Today's games are bureaucratic messes designed over long periods of time by major corporations. --[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 21:58, 3 December 2007 (EST)

==Better==
Of course the learning edge is going to be hard to adjust to, but once you're up there playing with the big boys, a whole new level of play emerges. Double Edge, you seem not to be the biggest Halo player, so I'm guessing you can't tell me what "superjumps", "sweepsticking", and "track-shooting" are. Scratching the surface, of course there doesn't seem to be too much complexity. But by utilizing existing features, a whole new level of complexity emerges. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 11:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply '''I was not complaining about the lack of compexity in Halo. I was rather complaining about the incredibly hard and unnessiarily complecated gameplay.

::Improved graphics and sound combined with greater computing power are making possible games that were inconceivable 10 years ago. Right now I have "Medieval 2: Total War" loaded up on my PC. The battle graphics are absolutely incredible; it is almost like a window into history. And while "twitch" games may be harder with the additional controls to master, I think they're still a lot better and will only continue to improve.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:38, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Better. The games are harder, but your skill evolves over time, and the greater substance makes the game infinitely more pleasurable. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 14:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No Opinion==
I don't necessarily think the graphics have anything to do with the games. I've seen some horrible games come out despite new amazing graphics, and yet I've also seen horrible games in days gone past (E.T. for Atari anyone?). Games like FarCry are amazing, with superb gameplay and non-linear methods (even though the storyline is linear), yet have awesome graphics. That being said I've also run across games like Call of Duty, which are pretty good, really can be frustrating at times due to the nature of the "enemy" AI's. It's frustrating clearing a building out only to have a new enemy "bot" spawn directly behind me (United Offensive). Graphics can only go so far in adding value. The final touches HAVE to be in the gameplay for the game to really stick. [[User:Hengineer|Hengineer]] 10:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I think that the problem with improved graphics means that these games can take over a person's life as in many cases, it is more appealing than real life. However, in other cases it can simply enhance the enjoyment...this can be hindered however with far more complicated controls which cause people to practice them and therefore they can also take-over one's life this way!!!!!!
Having said this they can be very enjoyable and especially sports games for me...the better the graphics, the better the gameplay, the more enjoyment (User:bealecr) (EDT) 10:56, 28 April 2007

It's a tough call. While graphics, sound, gameplay, etc. are getting better, I don't think the substance of video games is getting any better. There haven't been any truely innovative games released in a long time. A majority of it is the same old same old FPS, RTS, etc. I'd like to see game developers slow down on the fluff and come up with some revolutionary ideas. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 10:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

==No duh!==
It is not important if video games are getting better or worse. Just don't play them, allright? Unless there is some benefit to it. But look at your life this way: time is your greatest comodoty. Time is MORE valuable than money... time is your LIFE. The devil is slowly killing countless young people by getting them to waste their time (lives) on silly video games. Get out there and do something more productive with your life... do something for GOD.
(fyi - the only way I see video games being beneficial, is if it is a recreational activity that you can use to build relationships with other people. And even then, use sparingly.
[[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:31, 10 October 2007 (EDT)
:However, there are non-recreational purposes for videogames. The Rainbow-Six series of videogames were used by both Military and Police in order to practice tactical actions when MILES gear and Shoot-Houses are not available. Games can also be used to enhance one's fine motor skills, and certain games require the player to think through a situation, something I think that many people should learn how to do. My friends and I use games in order communicate when face-to-face contact is impossible. You can get a lot of things out of games, that you can't get otherwise. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 21:26, 7 February 2008 (EST)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Genesis

2008-01-30T00:58:18Z

Capercorn: /* Authorship */ Added correct name for Documentary Hypothesis, also it is not a theory, it is a hypothesis

[[Image:Creation of the sun.JPG|right|thumb|250px|''Creation of the Sun'', by [[Michelangelo]]]]
''For the rock band Genesis, please see [[Genesis (band)]]''

'''Genesis''' ([[Greek]]: "birth", "origin"), the 'book of beginnings', and the first book of both the [[Judaism|Jewish]] [[Torah]] and the [[Bible]], recounts the beginning of the [[universe]], living things including [[homo sapiens|mankind]], and mankind's [[Society|social]] and [[Culture|cultural]] formations. It stands as the introduction of the entire body of the Bible, of the creation of the original nation of [[Israel]], and of the earliest promises of the coming [[Jesus Christ|Redeemer]].

==Name==
The [[Hebrews]] had called the first book of [[Moses]] by the name of ''bereisheet'' or ''be'reshith'', meaning "in the beginning", based on the three words which start Genesis. The [[Septuagint]], the ancient Greek-language translation of the [[Old Testament]], rendered this title under the name ''he biblos geneseos'', from which came the current title of ''Genesis'', meaning "origin".<ref>Unger, 1966, p.396</ref>

==Overview==
The fifty chapters of the book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: the early, primeval history of man from the [[Creation]] to the fall of the [[Tower of Babel]], and the [[Patriarchs|Patriarchal History of Israel]] from [[Abraham]] and his son [[Isaac]], grandson [[Jacob]], and Jacob's sons, primarily [[Joseph]], although there is a continuous genealogy connecting both parts.

===The Creation===
''For more detailed treatments, see [[Creation Week]], [[Creation story]], and [[Biblical creation account]].''

''In the beginning, God [[creation|created]] the [[heaven]]s and earth''. This is one of the most famous statements in the Bible, and it starts the account of God's creation. Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 involved the first seven days in history:
*The first day, the creation of the heavens and the Earth, and light ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|1-5}}).
*The second day, the creation of a "firmament" or ''expanse'', separating the waters ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|6-8}}).
*The third day, the creation of dry earth and plant life ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1|9-13}}).
*The fourth day, the creation of the Sun, the moon, and the stars, to mark the seasons ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|14-19}}).
*The fifth day, the creation of the creatures of the sea and the fowl of the air ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|20-23}}).
*The sixth day, the creation of the animals of the land, and the creation of Man ({{bible ref|Genesis|1|24-31}}).
*The seventh day, on which God rested from his task of creating ({{bible ref|Genesis|2|1-3}}).

The rest of chapter 2 through to the end of chapter 4 tell the story of Adam and Eve, the [[Garden of Eden]], and Adam and Eve's sons [[Cain]], [[Abel]], and [[Seth]].

The fall of mankind into [[sin]] began when the serpent questioned one of God's commands, namely not to eat of the [[tree of knowledge of good and evil]], and convinced [[Eve]] to eat the fruit, followed by [[Adam]]. The result of disobeying this command resulted in the driving away of Adam and Eve from the Garden to live a life of subsistence farming, and eventually dying. Eve was additionally cursed with painful childbearing, and to be subservient to Adam. All of these curses were also applied to Adam and Eve's descendants. {{bible ref|Genesis|3|15}} is cited as being the first reference to the coming [[Messiah]].

Chapter 5 is a [[chronogenealogy]] from Adam to [[Noah]] and his sons.

===The Flood===
Chapters 6 to 9 tell the story of the [[great flood]].

The wickedness of mankind becomes so great that God 'repents' of His creation and decides to destroy it all through a [[flood]]. Only Noah is righteous before God, and He instruct Noah to build an [[Noah's Ark|ark]] to carry himself, his family, and pairs of every creature on earth and in the air. God then destroys the earth with [[water]], the ark riding the waves until the waters abate and it comes to rest at the mountains of [[Ararat]]. God makes a promise never to destroy the earth by flood again, and shows Noah the sign of that covenant, a [[rainbow]].

Noah is also the first planter of a [[vineyard]], and during a drunken sleep one of his sons ([[Ham (son of Noah)|Ham]]) sees him naked. Noah awakes with the knowledge as to what he had done, and places a curse upon Ham's son Canaan, declaring that Canaan and his descendants would be slaves to the his brothers [[Shem]] and [[Japheth]]. All three sons would have their names and their descendants listed on the [[Table of Nations]], which is contained in chapter 10.

===Abraham===
Chapters 11 to 23 and the start of chapter 25 tells the story of Abram

Abram leaves the city of [[Ur]] with his wife, Sarai, on a journey towards [[Canaan]], where God has shown him what He was going to do: ''I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves.''

Sarai, being unable to have children, tells Abram to take [[Hagar]], his [[Egypt]]ian maid, as his [[wife]]. Hagar becomes pregnant with [[Ishmael]], and God makes a promise that the child will be "a wild ass of a man, his hand against every man and every man's hand against him," with descendants beyond number.

God also makes a covenant with Abram: Abram will have many descendants as well as possession of the land of Canaan. Abram's name is changed to "[[Abraham]]”, and Sarai becomes "[[Sarah]]." A sign of the new covenant is the [[circumcision]] of all males. Abraham is also told that Sarah will bear a son who will be named [[Isaac]], and it is through Isaac and his descendants that the covenant will be established; although Ishmael is to be a great nation, he is left out of God’s covenant.

Two [[angel]]s appeared to Abraham and told him that Sarah, barren for years, will bear a son. They also tell him that the wickedness of the cities of [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] is very great, and God will shortly punish them.
Abraham asks if the cities can be spared if so much as ten righteous men are found inside.

The two angels are received by Abraham's nephew [[Lot]], much to the consternation of the townspeople who surround the house and demand sexual acts with the strangers.
The townspeople are blinded, and the angels warn Lot and his family to flee immediately for the mountains and never look back. Both Sodom and Gomorrah are consumed by [[fire]] and [[brimstone]].
Lot’s wife turns back to look and is turned to a pillar of salt.

Sarah gives birth to Isaac, and at her insistence demands that Hagar and Ishmael are driven into the wilderness. While Ishmael is near dying, an angel speaks to Hagar and promises that God will not forget them, and will make the descendants of Ishmael a great nation.

God puts Abraham to the test by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac. Abraham sets out to obey God by carrying out is request.
But just as he is about to thrust the knife into Isaac, God restrains him, and promises descendants beyond numbering. Abraham dies later, "full of years", and is laid to rest in the Tomb of Machpelah in [[Hebron]], which he had purchased shortly before as a place of rest for Sarah.

===Isaac and Jacob===
Isaac had prayed to God that He would give his wife [[Rebekah]] a child, even though Rebekah was unable to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]]. God grants Isaac's request, and Rebekah gives birth to the twins [[Esau]] and [[Jacob]]
However, prior to the birth God predicted division between the two, with the elder serving the younger. Esau, the elder, despised his own birthright and sold it to Jacob for a bowl of red porridge, allowing Jacob to enter his father’s tent and deceitfully take the blessing intended for Esau. He flees to [[Haran]], the home of his uncle [[Laban]]. Along the way he has a dream of a ladder to Heaven, where God tells him of prosperity for himself and his descendants. Jacob names the spot [[Bethel]] in commemoration.

Jacob had two wives, [[Leah]] and [[Rachel]], and two [[concubine]]s, [[Zilpah]] (Leah's handmaid), and [[Bilhah]] (Rachel's handmaid). Together they bore Jacob twelve sons:
*From Leah: [[Reuben]], [[Simeon]], [[Levi]], [[Judah]], [[Issachar]], [[Zebulun]].
*From Rachel: [[Joseph]], [[Benjamin]].
*From Zilpah: [[Gad]], [[Asher]].
*From Bilhah: [[Dan]], [[Naphtali]].

===Joseph===
Joseph was Jacob's favorite son and was given a special colorful [[coat]], which provoked jealousy in his brothers, who were also angered by Joseph's dreams indicating his brothers would bow down before him.
So his brothers took the opportunity one day to sell him into [[slavery]] and claim to a distraught Jacob that Joseph was killed by a wild animal.

His ability to explain [[dream]]s while a slave in Egypt came to the attention of [[Pharaoh]], who was troubled by a dream of seven skinny [[cattle|cows]] and withered stalks of [[corn]] which ate seven fat cows and healthy stalks of corn. Joseph interpreted the dream as that of Egypt going through seven years of plentiful [[harvest]]s, followed by seven years of severe [[famine]], and followed it up by recommending that Pharaoh appoint a wise man over Egypt to ensure enough is collected and stored during the plentiful years to act as a hedge against the years of famine. Pharaoh responds by appointing Joseph himself to this position.
During the famine "all the earth came to Egypt to Joseph to buy grain, because the famine was severe over all the earth."

Jacob, not knowing Joseph was still alive, sent his sons to buy [[grain]] in Egypt. The brothers appeared before Joseph, but did not recognize him.
Joseph however, recognized them, and after a series of tests which convinced Joseph their characters had changed, revealed himself to them, convinces them that what happened in the past was God’s plan, and told them to bring Jacob and their families to live in Egypt.

Genesis ends with the blessing of Jacob’s children, his death, and the death of Joseph, who exhorts his brothers to carry his bones to the [[Promised Land]] when they eventually reach there.

==Authorship==
Biblical tradition within and without the [[Old Testament]], [[Jesus]] in the [[New Testament]], as well as extra-Biblical writers such as [[Josephus]], [[Origen]], the early church fathers and many others, have claimed [[Moses]] as the author of Genesis, written during the time of the [[Hebrew]] wanderings in the Wilderness, between 1440-1400 B.C. Certainly, Moses was well able to have written Genesis in Hebrew, [[Akkadian]], or Egyptian. He was well educated and trained in the Egyptian court. [[Archaeology]] demonstrates that such a man would have the education necessary to accomplish this during that time in history. <ref>Unger, pp. 35-35</ref>

The higher critical view is that Moses did not write Genesis. Some biblical scholars identified five separate authors of the five 'books of Moses'<ref>[http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm Who Wrote The Pentateuch, The Five Books of Moses?]</ref><ref>[http://lectionary.org/EXEG-English/OT/EOT01-Gen/Authorship-Genesis%20&%20Pentateuch.html Introduction to Genesis & the Pentateuch]</ref>. This idea is called the ''Documentary Hypothesis''. Although unidentified, each of these authors has been given the name of a letter:
* J who calls God ''YHWH'' (the ''Jehovist'' account), and who possibly wrote in the south of [[Kingdom of Judah|Judah]], written c. 850 B.C.
* E who uses ''Elohim'' ('the gods', 'the spirits') as God's name, and possibly wrote in [[Ephraim]], written c. 750 B.C.
* D who wrote the book of [[Deuteronomy]], about 650 B.C.
* P who wrote an alternate history in what was called the ''Priestly Code'', about 500 B.C.
* R who joined the writings of J, E, D and P to form a single work.
Under this hypothesis, looking at the Creation story
* Genesis 1:1 through 2:3 were written by P.
* Genesis 2:4 was written by R
* Genesis 2:5 through 4:26 were written by J.
This idea has gained in popularity since it was first proposed in the late 19th century. However, it is inevitably a product of modern rationalistic research and the application of literary criteria. Opponents of this research point to the fact that it is difficult to reconcile with the historical, miraculous, and prophetic elements which they claim to be basic to the first five books of the Bible.<ref>Unger, p. 397; Young, pp. 183-276</ref>

== See also ==

*[[Sistine Chapel]]
*[[Dead Sea Scrolls]]

==References==

<references/>

==Sources==
*Holy Bible, King James Version (''Thompson Chain Reference''), B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co. Indianapolis, IN 1982.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Dictionary'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1966.
*Unger, Merril F. ''Unger's Bible Handbook'', Moody Press, Chicago, IL 1967.
*Young, Edward J. ''Introduction to the Old Testament'', W.B. Eardmans Pub. Co. Grand Rapids, MI 1949.

==Links==
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/table.html Table of Nations chart]
*[http://www.creationapologetics.org/creation.html Creation timeline]

[[Category:Old Testament Books]]
[[Category:Biblical Books]]

Extraterrestrial life

2008-01-02T04:48:25Z

Capercorn: /* Definitions */ certain non-human species on Earth have been demonstrated to be Sentient, yet do not have language.

'''Extraterrestrial life''' is [[life]], whether demonstrated, hypothesized, or merely imagined, that did not obviously originate on the [[earth]]. It has been a staple of [[science fiction]] since the [[Edward VII|Edwardian]] era, but has also lately become the subject of intense speculation, scientific debate, and even theological debate.

== Definitions ==
''Extraterrestrial'' means "outside or beyond the earth." This may or may not include other planets, whether in our [[solar system]] or [[extrasolar planets|out of it]].<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=+Extraterrestrial Dictionary entry for extraterrestrial]</ref>

''Life'' means living things, regardless of size, appetite, or condition of sentience.

''Microbe'' (from the [[Greek]] ''mikros'' small) means a form of life too small to see with the naked eye.

''Sentient'' life, also called ''sapient'' life (from the official binomial name of man, ''Homo sapiens''), means life that is aware of itself and the ability to reason.

''Person'' means a sentient individual.

''Race'' means a species of sentient individuals. The use of the term ''race'' to mean a clan-like "subspecies" is not in view here. In this context, humans all belong to only one race, i.e., the human race.

''Civilization'' means the organization of a large group of ''persons'' to facilitate learning, justice, order, management (or acquisition) of resources, and mutual defense.

''[[UFO]]'' means unidentified flying object.

== Extraterrestrial life as a scientific hypothesis ==
Vigorous scientific research on the subject is fairly limited, and has focused on both the "micro" and "macro" aspects of the problem:

# The [[exogenesis]], nature, survival, and movement of primitive life forms, including the hazard that such microbes might pose to [[astronaut]]s or to the earth itself.
# The possibility of prior or future detection, contact, trade, or war with an extraterrestrial [[civilization]].

=== Microbes and other primitive forms ===
[[Image:PIA09027 a anno br.jpg|400px|right]]

Extraterrestrial microbes have been and remain the subject of much serious scientific speculation. Such speculation has centered on three questions:

# Could a microbe of extraterrestrial origin somehow come to earth and cause a killer [[pandemic]]?<ref>This question of ''back-contamination'' was a serious worry in the middle years of [[Project Apollo]]--that is, the time of the first four missions of that project. [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]], the launch authority for Apollo, required the crews of the first three missions actually to reach the [[moon]] to spend weeks in [[quarantine]] while under the constant care and watch of a [[physician]]. Only after three crews landed on the moon and returned to earth with no ill effect and no evidence of having contracted any communicable disease on the moon or in space did NASA drop that requirement. (The crew of [[Apollo 13]] did not face this requirement because their in-flight emergency precluded their planned landing.)</ref>
# Did life on earth begin with the "seeding" of the earth from outside? This theory, called [[panspermia]], alleges that either (a) the earth acquired the seeds of life by passing through the tail of a [[comet]], or (b) an extraterrestrial ''civilization'' sent the seeds of life ''deliberately'' for one reason or another. Extraterrestrial microbes would be involved in either case.
# Might a human crew or human-directed robotic explorer find extraterrestrial microbes on another [[planet]]?

With the continued development and perfection of telescopes, [[Astronomy|astronomers]] and [[rocket]] [[science|scientists]] have openly and often feverishly speculated about whether the other planets in our [[solar system]] might harbor forms of life that originated on those planets. This speculation has also extended to [[Titan]], the largest satellite of the planet [[Saturn]].

The major considerations driving such speculation are the requirements of life, and the difficulty with the theory of [[abiogenesis]] as a workable origin of [[life]] on [[earth]]. Most scientists engaged in such speculation seem to agree that life requires at least two things in order to self-generate in any environment:

# [[Water]]
# An [[atmosphere]]
[[Image:Mars_meteorite.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Meteor]]ite believed to have once been a part of [[Mars]] and to contain [[fossil]] evidence that primitive [[life]] may have existed on Mars.[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/mars/meteorites/html/s94_032549.html Image source] ]]
Currently the most exciting subject for speculation concerning extraterrestrial life is the planet [[Mars]]. Its atmosphere is quite thin, and this would militate against the presence of life or, more to the point, the presence of standing or flowing water. But photographs taken from orbit and from the surface of Mars reveal erosion channels that strongly suggest that water once flowed on Mars. Indeed, the first graphic above shows changes in a gully in two views of it, taken four years apart--as if liquid water had opened another erosion channel in the meantime. (The operators of the Mars Global Surveyor insist that such pictures might still contain artifacts that make them unsuitable for scientific research, and hence disclaim any definite conclusion that anyone might be tempted to draw from them.) The second graphic shows a [[meteor]]ite, found in [[Antarctica]] in 1984, containing microscopic cavities that once might have held [[microbes]] and that, until recently, was believed to have fallen to earth from Mars.<ref>Donald L. Savage, James Hartsfield, and David Salisbury, "[http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/nasa1.html Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars]," ''Mars Meteorite Project'', press release 96-160, August 7, 1996. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from the [[Jet Propulsion Laboratory]] Web servers.</ref>

If one could show that abiogenesis occurred on Mars, then that process was far more likely to have occurred on earth than it would be absent such a showing or finding. Yet apart from the reliability of such evidence is this one inherent weakness for this argument: it assumes that life ''found'' on Mars ''originated'' on Mars. The [[Hydroplate theory]] of the [[Great Flood]] suggests that large quantities of water, including muddy slurries, were ejected into space during the initial fissure of the original earth's crust, and that these ejecta persist today as [[comet]]s, [[asteroid]]s, and [[meteor]]oids. If such ejected water and mud fell to Mars from above, then they might have held [[microbes]]--and therefore any microbes found on Mars are far more likely to have come from earth during the Noachic Flood than to have originated on Mars.<ref>If such life forms survived, that need not be a great shock to any observer. [[Extremophiles]], or microbes known to thrive under conditions that would kill or render dormant any other form of life, are well-known on earth and have even been the subject of engineering studies attempting to find practical uses for them.</ref>

Space scientists have searched for extraterrestrial microbes for years. To date, no definitive proof of such microbes has been found. The Antarctic meteorite mentioned above, and the alleged bacterial fossils on it, fueled speculation for months, until other scientists finally determined that the microbes involved probably were earthly contaminants.<ref>Rick Lockridge, "[http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9801/15/contaminated.rock/ Scientists dispute NASA's claims about Mars meteorite]", ''The Cable News Network'', January 15, 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007 from CNN's web servers.</ref>

Nevertheless, the finding of extraterrestrial microbes on [[Mars]] is one of the fondest expressed hopes of NASA planetary scientists<ref>Authors unknown, "[http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/life/ Do Martians Exist?], ''NASA Mars Exploration'', 05 Oct 2005 04:51:40 UTC. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [[NASA]].</ref> and of other scientists and advocacy groups<ref>Everett Gibson, Jr., David S. McKay, and Kathie Thomas-Kerpta, "[http://www.marssociety.org/portal/TMS_Library/MAR_98_046/view Life on Mars: Evidence from Martian Meteorites]," ''Proceedings of the Founding Convention of the Mars Society'', R. M. Zubrin and M. Zubrin, eds. 1998. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from [http://www.marssociety.org The Mars Society].</ref> hoping to persuade the [[United States]] government, or perhaps the [[United Nations]], to fund crewed expeditions to Mars. Furthermore, no sane space mission planner could in good conscience ignore the potential hazard of the transport of a microbe to earth and the release of that microbe into earth's [[biosphere]]. Happily, measures for containing such a microbe, perhaps derived from those measures taken during [[Project Apollo]], would contribute a relatively insignificant amount to the total budget of a program of crewed missions to Mars or to any other celestial body.

[[Francis Crick]] and [[Leslie Orgel]], in 1973,<ref>Crick, F. H. C., and Orgel, L. E. "Directed Panspermia," ''Icarus'', 19, 341 (1973).</ref> openly speculated on a form of exogenesis called [[Panspermia#Directed panspermia|directed panspermia]], in which such an extraterrestrial nation-state fired a brace of missiles, each laden with [[bacteria]] and/or [[blue-green algae]], in all directions. One such missile crashed on earth, and we are its by-product, as it were, their theory states.<ref>For a detailed discussion on the logical weaknesses and omissions of such a position, see the main article on [[Panspermia]].</ref>

====Candidates for extraterrestrial life in our Solar System====
Besides [[Earth]] there are two moons and one planet that scientists consider possibly habitable to some form of life.
#[[Mars]], as mentioned above, is the most popular candidate. Ice is known to exist at the poles. Some liquid water might exist on Mars because temperatures occasionally rise above freezing.
#The [[Jupiter|Jovian]] moon [[Europa]] is covered with a thick sheet of ice. Scientists speculate that a liquid ocean may exist under the crust and that may harbour life.
#[[Titan]], a moon of [[Saturn]], has approximately the same percentage of [[nitrogen]] in its atmosphere as in Earth's. Titan also has [[ocean]]s and thick clouds. Scientists have determined that the oceans are liquid [[methane]], not water, and that the low temperatures of -178 Celcius make life, at least as we know it, highly improbable.

=== Extraterrestrial Civilizations ===
Do one or more extraterrestrial civilizations exist? Until recently, speculation about extraterrestrial races was confined either to [[science fiction]] or to innumerable anecdotal reports of "[[UFO|unidentified flying objects]]." These latter reports were once the subject of an investigation, known as [[Project Blue Book]], by the [[United States Air Force]].<ref>Anonymous, "[http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/ProjectBlueBook.htm Project Blue Book]", ''[http://www.ufoevidence.org/ UFO Evidence.org]'', retrieved April 16, 2007</ref><ref>Anonymous, ''[http://www.bluebookarchive.org/ The Project Blue Book Archive]'', retrieved April 16, 2007</ref><ref>Fund for Unidentified Flying Object Research (FUFOR), ''[http://www.nicap.org/index.htm Official Site of the National Investigative Committee for Aerial Phenomena]'', Francis L. Ridge, editor and Webmaster, December 15, 1997 to present. Retrieved April 16, 2007.</ref><ref>Presumably the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet]] Army Air Forces had their own version of Blue Book as well.</ref> But years after Blue Book wound down, a large cadre of scientists began to entertain seriously the notion that extraterrestrial civilizations might exist.

SETI ('''S'''earch for '''E'''xtra'''t'''errestrial '''I'''ntelligence)<ref>[http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=178025 Home of the SETI Institute]</ref> is the name given to several government and privately-funded projects that over the years have searched for evidence of extraterrestrial civilizations. This is done by listening via [[radiotelescope]] on a defined frequency band for any transmission having any semblance of order. The frequency band is one that, they believe, is the likeliest region in the [[electromagnetic spectrum]] for anyone to be sending a signal intended to cross interstellar, or even intergalactic, space.

No definitive evidence exists for any form of extraterrestrial civilization. While the [[Project Blue Book]] investigators found a number of cases that they had to classify as "unknown," they were able to classify the bulk of the anecdotes as anything from outright hoaxes to misinterpretations of common weather features to misinterpretation of the sightings of ordinary aircraft.<ref>The Air Force might also have acted in a deceptive manner in certain isolated cases in which what the witnesses took for [[UFO]]s were actually secret experimental prototypes. Perhaps some of these prototypes exist today as the [[B-2]], [[F-117]], and other [[Stealth aircraft]].</ref> Neither has any [[Astronomy|astronomer]] or [[astronaut]] reported a definite sighting of, much less contact with, any carrier-like vessel that would have been capable of launching any of the alleged two-seater or similar small-crewed craft that various "witnesses" report having encountered. Nor has any [[physics|physicist]] yet suggested a method by which such a craft could have visited our [[solar system]], given the fixed speed limit set by the [[Special Theory of Relativity]]. Finally, the SETI project, for all their searching for a signal (even to recruiting civilians to participate in a "distributed computing" project to process the noise they have received from their radiotelescopes), have never isolated anything like a definite signal.

====The Drake Equation====
In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake developed a method for estimating of the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy. The Drake Equation simply begins with the number of stars, then multiplies that number by a series of probabilities (probability that a star has planets, that a planet can support life, etc.) to obtain the quantity desired (number of populated planets, number of civilizations whose existence is detectable, etc.).

In principle, the Drake Equation can provide an upper and lower bound for the number of extraterrestrial civilizations by setting upper and lower bounds for each probability factor, which can then be improved upon as better information becomes available. Because the number of stars in so huge, even the lower bound is often calculated to be a respectable number. However, a serious problem is that some of the probabilities are completely unknown, or even unknowable. For example, the probability of life emerging on a planet is a meaningless concept if life is created directly by God and not by some naturalistic process.

If any of the probabilities appearing in the equation is zero, then the number of extraterrestrial civilizations of course goes to zero. This is a serious problem if one relies only on naturalistic explanations of the genesis of life. One of the most well-accepted scientific laws, the [[law of biogenesis]], says that life only comes from life, which means that it cannot come from non-life. Furthermore, scientific observations are that evolution itself is impossible, as evolution requires ''increasing'' genetic [[information]], whereas observations show that living things ''lose'' genetic information.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ The evolution train’s a-comin’], ''Creation'' 24(2):16–19, March 2002.</ref>

== Extraterrestrial Life in Science Fiction ==
Extraterrestrial nation-states and, almost as often, extraterrestrial microbes, have been a staple of [[science fiction]] since soon after science-fiction writers first began speculating on what sort of inventions might carry men into outer space, and what they might discover there. [[H. G. Wells]] even speculated on an extraterrestrial civilization on the [[moon]], populated by man-sized insects (''The First Men in the Moon''). Wells also speculated that the Martian nation-state would launch an invasion of earth (''The War of the Worlds''), an invasion that would fail when the Martian soldiers and pilots fell terminally ill with earthly microbes against which their immune systems would have no defense. [[Edgar Rice Burroughs]] indulged in far richer speculation on an entire civilization on Mars, and on semi-regular commerce between his Martians and a select few visitors from earth.

The middle twentieth century saw the introduction of a number of popular-culture icons that were either:
# Humans caught up in events on other, inhabited worlds, some of which were making war against the earth, or
# An extraterrestrial "refugee" that became an obvious [[God-substitute]] after, [[Moses]]-like, he crashed to earth in a small space capsule launched from a world that later destroyed itself in a cataclysm far more devastating than the [[Great Flood]] had been.

In addition to this, the [[motion picture]] industry, especially in the [[United States]] but also in [[United Kingdom|Great Britain]], produced scores of low-budget films having a theme involving an extraterrestrial nation-state attempting either:

# To recruit humans, usually by fraudulent means, into assisting them in weapons or defensive-systems development,
# To subvert human society and/or the international community by infiltration or by playing some individual humans or human nation-states against others, or:
# To invade the earth by main force.

The motion picture industry abandoned that theme as the century progressed, and produced a number of films showing extraterrestrials to be friendly. Toward the very end of the century, the theme of extraterrestrial invasion returned, in the form of a number of high-budget films that linked the basic theme to a number of modern-day legends, including:

# The alleged crash of an extraterrestrial scout craft near [[Roswell]], [[New Mexico]], [[United States]].
# The synthetic religion, called [[Scientology]], developed by the late [[L. Ron Hubbard]]. This movement informed many of Hubbard's works, including [[Battlefield Earth]] (which the actor [[John Travolta]], an adherent of Scientology, has lately adapted for the [[motion picture]]s), and [[Mission Earth]], a ten-volume series completed shortly before Hubbard's death and published posthumously.

The [[Star Trek]] [[television]] franchise that [[Gene Roddenberry]] created, with its myriad of extraterrestrial and often trans-galactic nation-states and empires hardly needs introduction. But in addition, producer [[Quinn Martin]] created a series that centered on one man's attempt to warn his government that certain people were not what they appeared, but were instead extraterrestrial spies. More recently, [[Kenneth Johnston]] created a concept (''V'') of a space-borne force whose commanding admiral and officers at first puts on a friendly appearance similar to that of [[Matthew Perry]] (the American [[commodore]] who first visited [[Japan]]) but, soon afterward, subvert human governmental and media institutions in order to further their true purpose, which is to steal earth's water and carry away earth's population for food.

Nor have science fiction writers ignored speculation on the finding of extraterrestrial microbes. Usually they have portrayed such microbes as capable of producing deadly extinction-level pandemics. (See, for example, ''The Andromeda Strain'' by Michael Crichton.) John B. Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson, however, speculated that the first crew to fly to Mars might discover incontrovertible evidence of microbial life--including a culturable microbe. This would engender excitement in the hearts of their launch authorites, but would also inspire such fear in the mind of a [[National Aeronautics and Space Administration|NASA]] engineer that she would actually attempt to strand or murder the crew to stop them from [[back-contamination|back-contaminating]] the earth with their culture.

== Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life ==
The question of whether the existence of an extraterrestrial race is compatible with the [[Bible]] is in sharp dispute. The dispute is probably of modern origin--the Catholic Church never issued any formal pronouncement on the question of alien life, and most Protestant confessions are silent on the matter. Those insisting that the Bible is entirely compatible with extraterrestrial races hold that the Bible contains no verse that says directly that man is the only sentient race in the universe.

===John 10:16 ===
Compatability advocates quote this verse:{{Bible quote|I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.|book=John|chap=10|verses=16|version=NASB}}

Critics of this position point out that that verse probably referred to the distinction between [[Judaism|Jew]] and Gentile, and reject the proposition that "other sheep" might include extraterrestrial races.

===Uniqueness of the Atonement===
Opponents hold that the presence of such a race would give the lie to the claim of [[Jesus|Jesus Christ]] that He came to take away the sin of the world.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_John|chap=2|verses=2|version=NASB}}</ref>, and that He died once and only once to bring this about. They contend that since Jesus is referred to singly (as he was an individual person), this rules out the possibility of an alien counterpart to Jesus, and that an alien counterpart to Jesus is a necessary precondition for an alien nation to exist.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=26-28|version=NASB}}</ref><ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=5|verses=14|version=NASB}}</ref>--and that Kingdom is also not of this universe, or "cosmos".

Defenders of the compatibility position might insist that neither of the two verses named above speaks directly to the uniqueness claim. But the original [[Hebrew]] and [[Greek]] texts use definite article adjectives and references to a specific person named [[Adam]] (and another, named [[Jesus]]), with no hint that either Adam or Jesus had any counterpart elsewhere in the cosmos. These things militate in favor of uniqueness almost as well as any direct negation of plurality might. Again, compatibility defenders might cite a lack of evidence that any hypothetical alien race would ''require'' counterparts to Jesus or Adam. But [[Christian]] critics reply that if the Bible is real at all, then life does not arise out of non-life. Therefore ''every'' race would have its Adam--and if any given Adam did ''not'' fall into sin, then his race would be under strict Divine orders to avoid contact with humans until the "hour of temptation" (see above) came to pass.<ref>For a further exposition of the uniqueness position, see [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]].</ref>

The speculation concerning Jesus dying multiple deaths on other worlds has occasionally found poetic expression. See, for example, [[The Innumerable Christ]] by [[Hugh McDiarmid]].

=== Extent of the Creation ===
The presence of extraterrestrial ''microbes'' on one or more of the other planets in our solar system (most likely Mars) does excite some fear in Christian quarters. But not all Christians harbor such fear, and even [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationists]] are quite confident that they could explain such a finding. For example, if the [[hydroplate theory]] is correct and a slurry of mud from the Great Flood traveled to Mars and poured itself out upon it, then such a slurry would almost certainly contain microbes. That some of these might be extremophiles, and thus capable of long-term survival even in such a harsh environment as that of Mars, is entirely possible and would allow complete harmony between the finding of microbes in such locations and the Biblical account of earth pre-history.

==Non-Christian Views on Extraterrestrial Life==
Outside of the Christian faith, other religions, as well as movements exhibiting characteristics common to [[pagan]] religions, have adopted or expressed tenets dealing with extraterrestrial life:

#'''Church of Scientology''' founder L. Ron Hubbard has lectured on and written accounts of complex extraterrestrial civilizations and alien interventions in earthly events.
#The '''[[Raelians]]''' believe that their minds are the once-disembodied souls of extraterrestrial persons (and therefore believe that their minds are extraterrestrial in origin though their bodies are not).
#The '''[[Hale-Bopp movement]]''', whose members committed mass suicide in the season of the close passage near the earth of [[Comet Hale-Bopp]], believed they would be taken away by an alien craft concealed in the comet's tail.
#The '''[[UFO]] movement''', which exists as a loose alliance of organizations often having the initials "UFO" in their names, ''viz.'', "Mutual UFO Network", "Center for UFO Studies," "Fund for UFO Research", express various beliefs concerning the extrterrestrial nature of unidentified flying objects.
#The '''[[Nation of Islam]]''', especially when it came under the leadership of [[Louis Farrakhan]], expressed a belief that the original founder of the Nation of Islam lives today in an extraterrestrial spacecraft called the "Mother Wheel," and that Farrakhan himself has been taken on board that vessel for consultations with this person.<ref>Farrakhan seems recently to have abandoned this theory and attempted to steer the movement he now leads toward the orthodox [[Islam]] taught by [[Muhammad]].</ref>

== Explanations given for UFO sightings and belief ==
Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on [[UFO]] bibliography for the [[United States Air Force]] Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:<ref name=Reason>Authors unknown. "[http://www.letusreason.org/NAM25.htm A UFO 2nd Coming]." Let Us Reason Ministries, 2007. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=Gleghorn>Gleghorn, Michael. "[http://www.probe.org/cults-and-world-religions/cults-and-world-religions/ufos-and-alien-beings.html UFO's and Alien Beings]." Probe Ministries. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref> {{Cquote|A large part of the available UFO literature...deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities...poltergeist manifestations and 'possession'....Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to [[demonic possession]] and [[psychic phenomenon]] which have long been known to [[Theology|theologians]] and [[Paraphschology|parapsychologists]].}}

Prominent UFO researcher [[John Keel]] concurred. After surveying the literature on [[demonology]] Keel stated,<ref name=Gleghorn/>{{Cquote|The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself.}}

[[Astronomy|Astronomer]] Dr. [[Hugh Ross]] states that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a [[star]], cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. <ref name=Blade>Tarjanyi, Judy. "[http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73122266402007&Avis=TO&Dato=20030104&Kategori=NEWS10&Lopenr=101040052&Ref=AR Astronomer links UFOs to Occultism]." ''The Toledo Blade'', January 4, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref> According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen residual UFOs.<ref name=Blade/>

The following newspaper excerpt<ref name=Blade/> summarizes Dr. Ross's findings:

{{cquote|In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.

Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia?s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.}}

[[Christian]]s who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the [[theory of evolution]] have presented arguments in the field of [[Christian apologetics]] regarding UFO's being spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.<ref name=Gleghorn/><ref name=Reason/><ref name=Bohlin>Bohlin, Ray. "[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/lifemars.html Are We Alone in the Universe?]" Leadership University, July 14, 2002. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=CMI>Authors unknown. "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2995/ Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers]." Creation Ministries International. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref><ref name=AiG>Authors unknown. "[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alien.asp Alien Life/UFO Questions and Answers]." Answers in Genesis. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>

== Political speculation on ET's and UFO's ==
Politicians (among them, former [[President of the United States]] [[Jimmy Carter]]) have openly speculated on the existence of extraterrestrial nation-states.<ref>Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization.[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm] See [[Jimmy Carter]].</ref> More recently, [[United States House of Representatives|US Representative]] and Presidential candidate [[Dennis Kucinich]] [[Democratic Party|D]]-[[Ohio|OH]]) was asked in a primary debate whether he had, as earlier alleged, seen a UFO--and answered in the affirmative.<ref name=Kucinich>User "nikbaron". [http://youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc Representative Dennis Kucinich UFO]." ''<http://youtube.com>,'' posted October 31, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.</ref><ref name=Feagler>Feagler, Dick. "[http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stories/index.ssf?/base/opinion-0/1193474407233790.xml&coll=2&thispage=1 So Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO; what's the big deal]?" ''The Plain Dealer'' (Cleveland), October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 17, 2007.</ref>

For further details, see the article on [[Exotheology]].

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

== See Also ==
*[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]
*[[Exotheology]]

[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Biology]]
p

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2008-01-02T04:46:25Z

Capercorn:

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-12-17T15:32:48Z

Capercorn:

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-12-09T14:14:01Z

Capercorn: /* NO! */

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-12-03T19:15:32Z

Capercorn: /* NO! */

Debate:Is Rap music torture?

2007-11-27T15:56:27Z

Capercorn:

According to ''ABC News'', suspected terrorists undergoing [[coercive interrogation]] have been " forced to listen to rap artist Eminem's 'Slim Shady' album. The music was so foreign to them it made them frantic" [http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/print?id=1322866] Is this dehumanizing treatment banned by the Geneva Convention, and if not, should it be?

:I suspect the detail about the kind of music was mentioned to make the treatment sound more ludicrous and less cruel. If you can encourage people to joke about whether rap music is torture, you're deflecting attention from the general character of the treatment itself.

:I suspect that the significance of the music's being "foreign" is that the patterns to it are unfamiliar, and it would be preceived as unpredictable noise rather than as music.

:What volume level was it played at? Was the real point to induce sleep deprivation?

:If you played "music" to me at 110 db, continuously, it wouldn't really matter whether it was rap, Balinese Gamelan music, or Khachaturian's ''Sabre Dance,'' it would deprive me of sleep.

:But if you say "they were subjected to intense noise" it sounds like it could be torture, whereas if you say "they were subjected to rap music," it sounds like a joke. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:23, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::What [[User:Dpbsmith|he]] said. I was too lazy to type it myself. As far as "torture" or banning under the GC (as if ''we'd'' pay attention to such "outdated concepts"), once you reach a certain volume level, which is easy to do in small cinder block rooms, it's not only not "music", it's simply a physical assault - it causes permanent damage, for instance. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:21, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well at what point it causes permanent brain damage is debatable... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Who said anything about ''brain'' damage? The effect of prolonged exposure to high sound pressure levels (for varying times and SPLs) is well documented - ''on the ears''.

:::::Point taken. I amend my statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

People can be very creative when it comes to finding new ways to harm others. - Suricou

During the invasion of Panama, when Noriega was hiding in the Vatican embasy the US blasted rap until he came out. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 12:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

If it is, why do people listen to it? {{unsigned|JessicaS}}

:Songs by [[Barney the Dinosaur]] were also used in this capacity. While cultural barriers rendered this technique mainly ineffective at [[Guantanamo Bay]], if this were to be used against Americans I would expect it to be a powerful coercive weapon. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

West Coast rap or East Coast rap? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]]

I kind of think that Country music can be tourture. [[User:Jason|Jason]] 22:37, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

== Yes ==
It makes my ears bleed. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 10:56, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-11-26T23:37:24Z

Capercorn:

The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm here]. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)
:The quote in question is this: ''"My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.”'' --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-11-26T19:59:29Z

Capercorn: I forgots to sign

Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

2007-11-26T19:59:10Z

Capercorn: New page: The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down [http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070427/27114_Protests_Planned_for_Grand_Opening_of_Creation_Museum.htm he...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2007-11-26T19:56:12Z

Capercorn: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==

# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Stem Cells: Why or why not]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Airbus A380

2007-11-26T19:50:04Z

Capercorn:

The '''A380''' is a large widebodied airliner intended as a direct competitor to the [[Boeing]] [[747]]. It is manufactured by [[Airbus]]. It is currently the largest passenger aircraft manufactured. It has two decks running the full length of the aircraft and four large turbofan engines. The aircraft also has an area in the nose that airlines can fit out as they wish. Options such as shops, childcare and gyms have been discussed, and the head of [[Virgin Airlines]] has declared that he would like to include casinos and private bedrooms with double beds.<ref> [http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005030021,00.html | The Sun Online "Biggest Plane Unveiled"] </ref>

The A380 has been beset by technical problems during manufacturing, based in [[Toulouse]], [[France]]. This has led to delivery delays which have caused some customers to cancel their orders in favor of the [[Boeing]] [[747]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Aircraft]]

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2007-11-21T18:55:12Z

Capercorn: /* But What is really important here? */ Debating is gud

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?

2007-11-11T14:36:29Z

Capercorn: /* I generally define a cult as */

{{debate}}

[[Scientology]] has recently become a hot spot of debate at this site, its one of the more [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics popular] articles and has been getting a lot of attention on the talk page and subject to revert wars. So I was curious what the community actually thinks. Is scientology a false religion? Is it a threat to Christianity?

==No==
Not false as its own religion. False as a Christian religion. It's not a threat to Christians. Christians already have their Bible of Old and New Testaments. Maybe this is why some consider themselves Christians and yet aren't following anything taught by Christ's original Disciples. But I wouldn't count that as a threat.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:08, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
::—Matthew 7:16-20
Apart from a litigious attitude toward public criticism of Scientology, I'm not personally aware of Scientologists as having done anything terrible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Really? Operation Snow White? Lisa McPherson? There are many others. Scientology kills. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:21, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Huh? I've never heard of these ... could you explain what these are? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:42, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Operation Freakout: Paullet Cooper wrote a critical book on Scientology, the church attempts to plant false evidence to get her convicted of federal crimes. Operation Snowhite: Scientologist infiltrate the IRS to destroy documents about the church and find information on critics, Hubbards wife and 17 others are convicted and sent to jail. Hubbard himself has been convicted of fraud at a Federal level. The Lisa McPherson story is complicated and told elsewhere if you google it, essentially the church was at the VERY least complicit in her death, if not the out and out cause of it. There are MANY more examples. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:49, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Check out their [http://www.xenu.net/fairgame-e.html fair game] policy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:51, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It's no more preposterous than any other religion. [stubbstarbuck]] 18:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Whaddya mean, ''religion''? Try, "is Scientology a thriving cult of greed and power that gives all religious movements a bad name, and I'll say yes. The premises of the question are false. [[User:Cthx]]

==Yes, but..==
I certainly believe their beliefs to be false, but what is important is that others see the facts and decide for themselves. As the Scientologists say, we should chose to believe or not. Why do they feel a need to obscure their beliefs with law suits?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but all religions are false in that they attempt to have you believe in something that does not exist. Scientology does have a sinister element that other religions lack. Other faiths have their elements (TV preachers for example) that seek to bilk the faithful out of their money. Scientology does this, and they do target their enemies--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The misdeeds of a few should not condemn the faith of the many. In Scientology, it seems the whole idea is corrupt, unlike Christianity.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:15, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Christianity teaches that all animals that weren't in a big boat died when it rained a lot. People take this literally. Can you really say this indicates a lack of corruption? --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:17, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The fact that some Christians take the story of the flood literally does not indicate that they are corrupt. It does indicate an appaling lack of intellect.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Just because you can't see doesn't mean there is no God. Atheists are fools with their own holiday, fools day. Do you believe that we live in a world that has wind? Where is it, I can't see it, must not be there, it is false. Nothing brings itself from non-being into being. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:00, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, scientology is a false religion because it was just a religion created by a sci-fi writer to make money. I think that scientology is harmful to Christianity because it can confuse would be Christians into believing the teachings of scientology. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 00:55, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

How can one religion ever be a threat to another religion short of physically forcing conversion? If the teachings of your religion are sound, and they bring hope and peace to the followers another religion won't tempt them. Its like a man thinking that every other man out there constitutes a threat to his marriage because he might lure his wife away. If the marriage is strong, she won't leave. -gasmonkey

Yes, no buts.. Scientology is a bunch of rubbish unless you believe in outerspace aliens, that live in our bodies and control our minds. The tyranny of the galactic God Xenu and his evil body thetans.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:How is that no buts? You just said that if you believe in that stuff then it's not rubbish. Just because you find it silly, doesn't mean that your neighbor does too. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:48, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, Scientology is a false religion, no buts about it. Unless of course, your neighbor believes in it, then it is an actual religion, praise Xenu. Just playing with words, do you not find it cute?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:39, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Any religion appears weird if you weren't raised with it. - [[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
: Uh... then how do you explain conversions (Muslim to Christian, for example)? - [[User:JCasto]]
::Or the other way round for that matter, I think that more Christians convert to Muslims than vice versa. No data, just the impression from certain high profile conversions like Muhammed Ali or Yusuf Islam. The problem is that religion is not based on logic but on emotion. If someone is brought up in a certain faith and they are not getting what they need from it then they will look for something else. Sometimes it is a wholesale conversion, othertimes it is supplementing with other beliefs; such as Nancy Reagan with astrology. Being a psychological thing it is very difficult to explain any of it. How does one explain the Mormon church or Islam? They only exist through the word an individual (no offence intended). Sufficiently charismatic people can persuade others to do things, or believe things that they might not otherwise do. Some of it can be explained but charlatans prefer that it is not so they can dupe the gullible. Anyone want to buy a bridge in London? [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:26, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That's different, Islam and Christianity have the same roots and share a number of basic beliefs, furthermore their followers are aware of each other's existence from a very young age, while many people only hear about scientology in their teens.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

There is a verified quote by Hubbard who said "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."

As the story goes, Heinlein and Hubbard were sitting in a bar one night with a bunch of other SF authors. The bet theory goes that RAH and LRH made a bet as to who could start a religion. According to this theory [[Stranger in a Strange Land]] was Heinlein's entry to the bet, and Dianetics was Hubbard's. One of those authors was [[Harlan Ellison]] - a transcript of his interview in the '70s adds some background to the bet theory [http://www.islets.net/faq.html#Anchor-Was-47857 Harlan Ellison website (warning, contains foul language)]. This may well be [[urban legend]], but I'm inclined to believe it to have more truth than fiction.

That said, the idea behind Scientology is one that closely mirrors Gnostic beliefs - Hubbard drew from history for his material. An interesting book to read on the subject is ''The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew''[http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830] which goes into some of the gnostic beliefs of some sects of early Christianity. The parallels between Scientology and early gnostic Christianity are very strong.

Within Scientology, you have the full range of people who practice - as you do in any religion. You have those who are trying to find meaning in their life. You have those trying to make money. You have those who are trying to convert/save others.

While the origins of Scientology are debateably monetarily inclined, there are people for whom it gives a direction in life. To that extent, Scientology is an institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices and it is an honest religion for some people. I don't believe it was conceived as such originally. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:31, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:: What ever you say Mtur, I love your parallels connection, says much about you. Maybe you can start some Conservapedia entries then. You know what else is an honest religion? Waking up at the same time everyday. Taking a whiz and a shower. Getting dressed for the day ahead. I believe it will start this way. I adjust my attitude and put into practice. Scientology, A religion? Cult --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:55, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Let see... claims to be a religion. Demands money from its followers. Viciously attacks all who speak negatively of it, including some high-profile journalists. Absolutly rediculous core doctrine (Xenu the galactic ruler?). Shadey origins. Clearly for-profit. Secretive internal workings. Frequent accusations of illegal activities, some of which have resulted in convictions. Sounds like a cult to me. And a quite dangerous one, by some accounts - remember, Scientologists are required to reject the use of conventional medications. There was even one case where an epileptic joined the church and was told he didn't really need his anti-seisure medication. He died not long after, as a direct result of his refusal to take said medication. - BornAgainBrit

BornAgainBrit all your accusations against scientologist also are mirrored in christianity especially in the south. Clearly for profit-pick a TV preacher
Secretive Internal workings-come on do i really even have to address this matter? Frequent accusations of illegal activities- priests. Many christian sects are required to reject modern medicine. If scientology is a cult that so is every religion on the face of the earth.

When a religous profite is a fiction writer that never intended to create a religion, thats a sign of a fake religion.

Yes, clearly scientology is a false religion. #1 it is not a religion, it is more of a cult. What god do scientologists believe in? To my knowledge they do not believe in a god but more in a supernatural power, but not specifically a "god". Without a god it cannot be a religon.

Isn't god nothing more than a supernatural power beyond our full understanding? You don't need the traditional view of God for it to be a religion, just a shared set of spiritual and moral values. Anything negative that can be said about the basic belief structure of Scientology can really be applied to almost any religion today.

==Definite YES.==

Basically, all their babbling about Xenu and similar, utter nonsense makes my head hurt. The founder had a great idea about how to make money: he realized this idea, made a huge load of money, and died a rich man. Is there a lot more to say? Oh, yes, he DID leave a huge mess of a cult behind to trouble our already-more-than-troubled world some more. Gee, thanks.
So, I´ll just say YES, with no "But" attached.

It's not true creation because dinosaurs are myths, our earth is flat, and heaven is the clouds.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:21, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:Exactly. Our story is right because the Bible says it's right, and their story is wrong because they don't have the Bible. Why would you ever want to look deeper than that? [[User:Kristkrispies|Kristkrispies]] 12:17, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. It is just as false and liberal as such devious religions as Satanism, Atheism, Arabism, and pro-choicism. Is it simply a coincedence that "''[[science]]''" (which is known to be false, because it opposes [[The Bible]]) appears in the word "'''''Scien'''tology''"? All Scientologists must be converted to Christianity NOW. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 14:36, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Seriously, man we could use some more bigotry to get the point across. [[The Bible]] could never be wrong, especially with all of our non-malevolent, non-manipulative human translators and monarchs who have had the good book warped into an evil artifact from a corrupt regime. I dare say Bush might be releasing a similar copy under the title, "'''Bush Universal Translation: '''With new words 'n evrytheeng!'''".[[User:Walkebb|Walkebb]]

It is all summed up in this one quote. "The best way to make money is to create your own religion" - L. Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. Look, there is a difference between a religion ([[Christianity]], [[Islam]], [[Buddhism]], [[Unitarian Universalism]], etc.), and a MONEYMAKING SCAM. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==I generally define a cult as==

1. They lie about their religious beliefs because they directors themselves know how nutty their beliefs are and that they will dissuade prospective converts. Hence, cults like Scientology lie about their beliefs. Only after a convert joins are they inducted into the real cult.

2. Salvation at a price. If I didn’t put money in that plate on Sunday the priest would still serve me communion. Yet cults like Scientology charge a heavy price for their “therapy” treatments.

Religions proudly profess their message over the hilltops and want to help people because virtue is its own reward not money.

Scientology is generally considered a cult simply because there are so few members. However by my standards a few “mainstream” religions are cults.

Can any religion or cult really be debunked?

To the believer no. To a Scientologist it all makes perfect sense. There would be no evidence proving or disproving their religious/cult beliefs.

To the non-believer yes. Scientology knows just how nutty it is and so it lies about its beliefs. The best course of action is to let the public know what Scientology is really about and let them decide.

== But Xenu is comming to Kill Us All!! ==



Beware All! Xenu, in his DC-10 spaceships shall come to end all Human Life, by taking us up in his spaceship, and dumping us in volcanoes. BEWARE!! --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 09:36, 11 November 2007 (EST)