Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-29T23:13:01Z

Chrysogonus:

== Redirect ==
Should [[BBC]] redirect here? Would seem logical. [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 13:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

The source used to justify the statement that the BBC has a political bias is a newspaper which itself has a political bias (of the opposite extreme). That's mad. {{unsigned|Ferret}}

By its charter, the BBC is required to be impartial (which was e.g. an issue in the Hutton Inquiry); this - of course - is difficult to achieve and often leads to the accusation of being biased. IMHO, it would be useful to add this information into the text. {{unsigned|Gux}}

: Good idea. Please go ahead and add it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I agree - it gets into just as much trouble with Labour governments as with Tory ones. To say it has an inherent liberal bias is misleading I think. Successive governments have taken a soft line on this because they understand that nobody wants a state broadcaster which feels unable to be critical of the government - that's the sort of thing that happens in dictatorships not in modern democracies. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 09:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I object to the liberal euphemism "license fee" instead of tax. The BBC gets revenues from a mandatory, govt-enforced tax on everyone with TV, regardless of whether they watch the BBC. That is a tax. Why call it a fee? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:33, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Licence fee is the official name for it. Only people who watch television have to pay it. We have many types of licence, for which a flat fee is payable, fishing, driving, pilot. It is the generally accepted term in the UK. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 18:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

: In the USA and the rest of the world, it is called a tax. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:51, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:: I don't see the relevance of stating that Americans don't understand the funding structure of the ''British'' Broadcasting Corporation. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 19:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Strictly doesn't tax go to the government? All the lecnise fee goes to the BBC. The government don't get any of it. [[User:DollarsAndSense|DollarsAndSense]] 18:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Llandudno

2007-05-29T23:09:52Z

Chrysogonus:

It's not ''really'' pronounced CLan-did-no is it? It's pronounced, well, LLan-did-no, in a way which isn't readily transliterated into English characters. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

'''''LL''''' is not easy to transliterate on a web page. I could use IPA (if I knew it) but bearing in mind the target audience I think ''Clan'' is a better approximation than ''Lan''. If you could come up with a better approximation I would be grateful but we're targetting people who may not even be able to pronounce Worcester correctly. Sorry if that sounds offensive but Britsih spellings and pronunciation can be difficult for non-natives. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:21, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

CHlan-did-no would be closer (where CH is similar to the Scottish CH as in LOCH). It is probably worth pointing out in the main article that the exact pronunciation is hard to capture. Maybe start a page on 'LL' with instructions on how to pronounce it. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:23, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I did think of CH but thought it might end up as in chippy rather than loch. This is hardly the Rosetta Stone course on Welsh but there could be a need for some explanation of Welsh consonants. [[User:Dafydd|Dafydd]] 18:34, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

THlan-did-no is another not particularly accurate suggestion. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 19:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu

2007-05-29T23:05:12Z

Chrysogonus:

'''Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu''' is a small hill in the Hawke's Bay district of New Zealand <ref> http://www.hawkesbaynz.com/sights_and_activities/art_culture_and_heritage/maori_culture_legends/index.htm#longplace </ref>. Its name means ''the summit of the hill, where Tamatea, the man with the big knees, who slid [down], climbed [up] and swallowed mountains, [to travel the land], [who is] known as the land eater, played [on] his [nose] flute to his loved one''. It is the longest officially recognised place name in the English-speaking world, being even longer than ''[[Los Angeles|El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula]]'' (a sizeable settlement in California) and ''[[Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch]]'' (a small town in North Wales).

==References==

<references/>

Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu

2007-05-29T23:00:28Z

Chrysogonus: New page: '''Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu''' is a small hill in the Hawke's Bay district of New Zealand <ref> http://www.hawkesbaynz.com/sigh...

'''Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu''' is a small hill in the Hawke's Bay district of New Zealand <ref> http://www.hawkesbaynz.com/sights_and_activities/art_culture_and_heritage/maori_culture_legends/index.htm#longplace </ref>. Its name means ''the summit of the hill, where Tamatea, the man with the big knees, who slid [down], climbed [up] and swallowed mountains, [to travel the land], [who is] known as the land eater, played [on] his [nose] flute to his loved one''. It is the longest officially recognised place name in the English-speaking world, being even longer than ''[[Los Angeles|El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula]]'' (a sizeable town in California) and ''[[Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch]]'' (a small town in North Wales).

==References==

<references/>

Swansea

2007-05-29T22:43:13Z

Chrysogonus:

'''Swansea''' is the second largest city in [[Wales]]. In Welsh it is called '''Abertawe''', meaning 'Mouth of the River Tawe'.

Within the city boundaries lie the Gower, the first area in Great Britain to be designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Gower boasts many fine beaches.

[[Category:Welsh Towns and Cities]]

Talk:Llandudno

2007-05-29T22:23:48Z

Chrysogonus:

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-29T22:15:50Z

Chrysogonus:

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]

The '''BBC''' ('''British Broadcasting Corporation''') is a public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]] and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is a [[crown corporation]] financed mainly by a licence fee. However, the government allows it to operate somewhat autonomously. The BBC produces many well known television programs, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and [[Doctor Who]].

==BBC News==

BBC News, part of the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] (BBC) is the largest news reporting organisation in the world. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3975900/3975913.stm]

==Bias==
The BBC has often been accused of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critics of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers [sic] money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible." and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444074&in_page_id=1770</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

==External Links==
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2007-05-29T22:15:29Z

Chrysogonus:

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]

The '''BBC''' ('''British Broadcasting Corporation''') is a public sector [[television]] and [[radio]] broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the [[United Kingdom]] and is regarded as one of the leading broadcasters in the world. In terms of audience figures, it is the largest broadcaster in the world. It was founded in [[London]] in 1927.

The BBC operates seven national television channels in the UK and seven national radio networks, as well as the BBC World Service radio network. Outside the UK the BBC operates BBC World TV, BBC America TV, BBC Canada TV and BBC Prime TV.

The BBC is a [[crown corporation]] financed by a licence fee. However, the government allows it to operate somewhat autonomously. The BBC produces many well known television programs, including ''Bod'', ''Grange Hill'', ''Holby City'', ''Are You Being Served?'', ''Terry and June'', ''Crackerjack'' and [[Doctor Who]].

==BBC News==

BBC News, part of the [[British Broadcasting Corporation]] (BBC) is the largest news reporting organisation in the world. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_3970000/newsid_3975900/3975913.stm]

==Bias==
The BBC has often been accused of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critics of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinise governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers [sic] money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible." and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444074&in_page_id=1770</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

==External Links==
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Swansea

2007-05-29T22:08:16Z

Chrysogonus:

'''Swansea''' is the second largest city in [[Wales]].

Within the city boundaries lie the Gower, the first area in Great Britain to be designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Gower boasts many fine beaches.

Swansea

2007-05-29T22:07:59Z

Chrysogonus:

'''Swansea''' is the second largest city in [[Wales]].

Within the city boundaries lie the Gower, the first area in Great Britain to be designated and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Gower boasts many fine beaches.

Talk:Llandudno

2007-05-29T22:04:17Z

Chrysogonus: New page: It's not ''really'' pronounced CLan-did-no is it? It's pronounced, well, LLan-did-no, in a way which isn't readily transliterated into English characters. ~~~~

Talk:Macroevolution

2007-05-29T21:46:19Z

Chrysogonus:

== First Arg ==
The current version is nothing short of inane. It can't even get the creationist canards correct. For example, the claim is made that no known mechanism adds "genetic material" - this is so false it isn't even funny. Many forms of mutations add genetic material. Examples include polyploidy, single-bit insertions and gene duplications. The claim made is that no mechanism adds "information" or a new "function" Note that even this claim is woefully false. Examples include: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194 which discusses bactera that through a mutation became able to digest nylon. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:15, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua: About how many artificial breeding experiments exist that show the genetic barrier has been crossed? I mean how many produced a non-sterile organism? [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 23:10, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. PMID: 10360571 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] This work shows lateral gene transfer. Many scientists view this as one of the multiple mechanisms that explain the addition of genetic material to the cell, not to mention the introduction of viral DNA into a host cell. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Ray that's charmingly irrelevant, you'll note that nothing in the article mentions any issues with such breeding, and that the objection above had nothing whatsoever to do with any "genetic barrier" (not surprisingly, since no such concept is mentioned in the article at all). The main point was that the article claims among other things that ''genetic material'' cannot increase which is so false that even AIG agrees that such a claim is false and make the distinction between increasing material and increasing information . See for example, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp here] where Sarfati asserts that "Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information" - so AIG agrees that genetic material can increase, but disagrees about genetic "information." [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Ray that's charmingly irrelevant...SNIP"

So there are none. Evolutionists insist that scientific facts are exclusively determined by experimentation; yet the main assertion of ToE (= speciation) has no breeding experiments to justify its reason for being? Are you saying it happens behind our backs in the wild? I ask again, Joshua, how many scientific experiments have breached genetic homeostasis? We know Darwin withdrew the only example of macroevolution from the second edition ''Origin of Species'' (bears to whales) leaving his book with zero content about the main claim of evolutionary theory (macroevolution). I would appreciate if you would just answer the question - thanks. [[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:23, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: Ray, the question was completely and utterly irrelevant, but if you insist I'll answer anyways(why I'm bothering I don't know)- see for example Dobzhansky Pavlovsky's 1971 paper- "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila" Nature 23:289-292. Note furthermore, that speciation is so well demonstrated that AIG, one of the world's largest creationist ministries lists claiming speciation has not occured as an example of an argument that creationists should ''not'' use.[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp]. In any event, this is all not germane to my original point- that the claim made here that mutation cannot increase genetic material is so wrong that even AIG agrees that that is inaccurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:04, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Are you claiming that speciesiation has never been observed in the lab? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: In fact, the ability for bacteria to mutate in ways that produce novel effects has been observed in the lab for over fifty years. See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 21 February 2007 (EST)

::: So you have one experiment ''Drosophila'' that justifies the extraordinary and main claim of ToE (= macroevolution)? Why not a 100 or even 15? Are you telling me the main assertion of ToE has ONE questionable experiment to justify its existence? So much for experimentation determining facts. This is why we know the Emperor is naked. And by the way, we know that information in the genetic code can be read out but nothing can be written in, which still leaves us wanting an explanation as to where new information comes from?

:::[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 12:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since the page is now protected, I'll use this space to suggest that the entry start by clarifying that the term is used very differently by adherents and critics of evolutionary theory. How long before all pages on Conservapedia are locked, I wonder? [[User:Moioci|Moioci]] 05:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:For that matter, ''why'' is the page protected? There's been precisely one case of vandalism, and that was fully three days before the page was locked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:55, 1 March 2007 (EST)

A small point that should be attended to: "data" is plural, so the last sentence should read "the data are..." rather than "the data is..."--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:53, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Another point to add is that all theories are considered unproven. It is redundant to place unproven before theory in the first paragraph of this article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

The statement ''The scientific data regarding mutations causing the significant changes necessary for macroevolution is extremely damaging to the macroevolutionary position'' is completely false. PAX6 is a wonderful example of a gene found across species that encodes for sensory organs. Slight mutations of this gene account for the diversity of optical organs found at the phyla levels.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Actually the diversity is mostly to do with the ''targets'' of Pax6, rather than changes in the gene itself, but that's not really important. In fact I would say that the article is confusion macro''mutation'' with macroevolution. Persumably creationists believe the theory of evolution predicts that annelids turned into vertebrates, which is really what that sentence would disprove. It just goes to show that the entire thing was written by someone with absolutely no basing in biology. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

Since this article is bound to be rather contentious, I'm going to explain my changes here, and invite other editors to do likewise:

#"unproven theory" is redundant
#"transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism" is simply wrong; is man ''completely'' different from other apes? No, of course not; we're all apes, all primates, all mammals, all animals, etc. etc.

[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

#"Clade" defined clade.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Fleshing out this page==

I am currently working on fleshing out the page a bit. Please be kind as I am adding a little at a time.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative's revert and locking==

Could you explain why you reverted this page and locked it while it was posted that it was being work on?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:There is nothing that states that evolution is fact in what I wrote conservative. I stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process within evolution. That is not stating that it was a fact nor that evolution was a fact. Please unlock this page and allow for further editing like the VSA said.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:31, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Neutral Evolution==
If the page was unprotected I could have finished with the editing so that you could see how Neutral evolution is a mech. of macroevolution. However since the page is still locked we nonsysops can not touch it.

Thanks Hojimachong for reverting the page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 07:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Post the complete edit here and I'll put it in if I think it does show that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Tsumetai has reinserted neutral evolution bit, with the comment, "''selectively neutral doesn't mean no change to the phenotype''". No, but surely it doesn't mean that it constitutes '''macro'''evolution. Anyway, I'll wait for TimS' extra material. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:42, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:I will continue when I have the chance on the edit. I am on lunch right now. Tsumetai is correct in that neutral evolution does not mean a lack of change in the phenotype, an example in laymans terms, hair color is a neutral change in the phenotype. A single neutral change does not have an impact on the speciation but it is the accumilation of these phenotype changes that makes the difference and thus the impact on speciation. That is why neutral evolution is considered a mech. of macroevolution. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:51, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Not all neutral drift is macroevolution, but it's still a mechanism that contributes significantly to the process. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'll need more convincing than that. A change in hair colour could be no stretch of the imagination be considered '''macro'''evolution. Perhaps the following analogy is bad, but if mutations could be rated according to their impact, some might be negative (-1), some positive (+1), and some neutral (0). An accumulation of neutral changes (0+0+0+0+0+0)... I think you can see where I'm going there. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Sure, a string of selectively neutral mutations is itself selectively neutral. But the phenotypic effect of each may be non-zero, so when you add ''those'' together, you can end up with an arbitrarily large phenotypic shift.

:::For that matter, even silent mutations contribute to evolution by providing more variation upon which future mutations can act. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 20:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

::::If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Change below the species level, basically. Any given genetic mechanism can contribute to both micro and macro. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::But if a mutation is neutral, then surely it is below the species level, almost if not actually by definition? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:40, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Probably, although there are probably ways to achieve speciation through purely neutral shifts; think changes in sexual selection which lead to a segregation of the population while leaving the net fitness unchanged. But '' They tend to contribute to both. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:19, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Tsumetai, you are correct. Another factor is that neutral mutations do get passed on as the organism evolves, and since mutations are not considered positive or negative until the environmental stresses test them or they cause the organism to have some fatal flaw (tay sachs for example) they can lead to macro and micro changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

''the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.''': surely the point is that 'micro' and 'macro' are distinctions made by Creationists, so when Philip Rayment asks ''If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution?'', it is up to him or others of his belief system to answer. Which should be easy for him, because he contends that there are more species (or kinds) extant today than there were on Noah's Ark, so he must accept that speciation (and hence, presumably 'macroevolution') occurs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
When you refer something to the panel you cannot delete all material that YOU YOURSELF object to, and then protect it. That is an abuse of power.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:18, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
: I demand that you re-instate your content and THEN protect it. Articles should be preserved in the status quo under appeal, NOT subject to your caprices.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::I agree this is a really ridiculous abuse of power. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 17:20, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Conservative, you have a lot of people allied against you on this. It is improper to modify a page that has been submitted to the Panel.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:25, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for him. He got away with it on the Theory of Evolution page. Even after the panel ruled, he got away with making an important substantive change (removing the link to The Origin of Species itself) without even a slap on the wrist; the only comment made on that ''at all'' by anyone with power, was the Panel mischaracterizing it is him adding a book to the recommended reading list. Nothing is improper for Conservative. --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 00:22, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
CPWebmaster, this has been submitted to the Panel. It should either be blanked or kept in the condition it was prior to its submission. That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Macroevolution&oldid=106418 this version].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sysops, this matter deserves attention. The page should be unlocked asap, and unreferred to the Panel, or it should be reverted to its state prior to submission.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:57, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==References section needed==
Can someone please add a references section to this article? I will put the appropriate text here so you can see how to do it. (This will also create such a section here, I think.)

<nowiki>==References==</nowiki> 
<nowiki><references/></nowiki>

:There were references before the revert.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Funny, here it is three weeks later and I just added a section to say just this (which I deleted when I saw this section). '''WAKE UP''' somebody, please. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:26, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There's currently no <nowiki><ref>-type</nowiki> references in the article to show in a <nowiki><references /> section</nowiki>. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It has been locked for weeks. Conservative's revert did not need them but the reverts before it had them. I think that Human wants some references to Conservative's claims.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 06:49, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Will this page ever be unlocked?==

It has been 2.5 weeks since this page was locked. Will it ever be unlocked so that further editing can be done? Right now its current state does not provide enough information to make it usable by students.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Chewing gum

2007-05-16T21:57:44Z

Chrysogonus: Adding an explanation of what chewing gum actually is, which I thought was useful in an article about chewing gum

A flavoured confectionary for chewing made from [[sugar]] and different [[polymer]]s. Originally chewing gum was made from chicle, the sap of a South American tree, but most mass-produced chewing gum these days is synthetic. See also: [[Starch]].
[[Category:Food and drink]]

Talk:Neanderthal

2007-05-16T21:44:15Z

Chrysogonus:

''Thought by evolutionists to represent some sort of "caveman". In fact, fits well within the normal height-weight ratios of modern humans''

How does the fact that they were physically similar to modern humans in some characteristics preclude them from having lived in caves? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:47, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:You need to consider the connotation of ''caveman'', not just its denotation.
:*denotation: a human being who lives in a cave : cave-dweller
:*connotation: a primitive (practical subhuman) creature having the appearance of ''homo sapiens'' and yet not really a person

:This is rough, of course, or I'd simply add it to the article. Do you get my drift? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

So why use the term "caveman" in the article? In what way does the height/weight ratio of the neanderthals have a bearing on whether they were modern humans or not? Can you link to some evolutionist researh in which neanderthals are described as subhuman? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 08:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:No, I can't. I don't know enough about [[human origins]] to do that. You sound like you know more about this than I do. May I offer you some writing tasks to volunteer for? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:58, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Good job on this, too bad it isn't going to last long.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Don't mess with this article!==

I wrote 90% of this article and it now falls under my protection:

* I will only allow additions with credible references:

: Good: accredited news agencies, science journals, university websites and research papers

: Bad: blogs, 100 year old books, AiG, CMI,...

* I will not allow creationist material in this article: this one's for science, if you're a YEC, go to a debate page or go vandalize the [[Dinosaur]] article

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:95%? Give me a bit more credit thatn that, it took me a while to get this article properly started. Your work on the article is superb, but I claim th eright to assist with this project. Your work is excellent though, in transforming my text to a full article and I wonder if you would be interested in doing the same for [[Homo]] [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Is 90% ok?
But, yeah, of course you can edit, anyone can edit this, as long as it's properly sourced.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]
:: 90%, Ah, go on then, but I am only letting you off on account of the funky photos. [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]]

Here goes your article. I hope you have the strength and power to defend your version. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:What's this about it being under ''your'' protection? All articles on Conservapedia are subject to being edited by others. And what's wrong with AiG and CMI as sources? Just because they have a different worldview to you is no reason to malign them.
:And what's with the (offensive) distinction between "science" and "creationist material"? Since when does the atheistic worldview have a monopoly on science?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think his claim of "Under his protection" is based on user:conservative's protecting the articles that he writes, the majority of, without allowing other editors, non sysops, to make changes.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS has it right, I guess. And definitely not "All articles" are open to being edited.
:::P.S. Fortunately, science is not monopolized by a religious or areligious group/worldview. Many scientists are Christians. But they do science, not religion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Some articles (too many) are locked to prevent vandalism or liberal edits, but none are limited to a single author (some essays excepted).
::::[[physical science|Origins science]] does tend to be monopolised by one religion: atheism. Even many of the Christians working in science have been bluffed into thinking atheistically.
::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Obviously not. And not. But this is not the place for that kind of discussion. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 10:56, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::Then why start it here? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:59, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Good question, only you know the answer. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Why did someone change the opening to this article? It was well written and factual. The reference to Mousterian tool tradition is accurate. Shouldn't the editor give some explanation as to why parts have been removed?[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Society in anatomy ==

I see alot of items concerning society being included in the anatomy section. Could someone more wiki-savvy than I clear that up? [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:Minor fix...all done[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 10:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== Copyright of images ==

What is the copyright status of the images in the article? A quick glance would suggest to me that they have simply been copied from a web-site. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:02, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is incorrect==
CPWebmaster, the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is not the correct name for the neanderthal. It is Homo neanderthalensis. Neanderthalensis and Sapiens are different species. Please correct.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:04, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This article really should be renamed Homo neanderthalensis. The Homo sapien neanderthalensis classification was largely based on Willian King's 1864 observations and conclusions that Neanderthals were very closely related to modern humans. Current research into Neanderthal DNA has revealed no evolutionary link between the two species, therefore many anthropologists tend to classfy Neanderthals as a seperate species. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 11:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The Smithsonian Institution classifies neanderthal as Homo neanderthalensis http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:35, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wasn't going to comment because I should be in bed by now, but would an acceptable compromise be to name the article either "Neanderthal Man" or "Neandertal Man" (there's justification for both) and then explain the scientific name(s) in the body of the article? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps but it does sidestep the scientific naming of the organism. --[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:::How does it "sidestep" it? It would still be included, and in more detail; it just wouldn't be in the title. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:03, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::The issue is what the correct naming is. When you are using a scientific name for an organism like Homo sapiens, you list it as genius then species. The title here is incorrect, if we remove it then continue to use Homo sapiens neanderthalensis we would still be wrong. What CPWebmaster did was basically reclassify that species Neanderthal is. He has placed it on the same level as Asian, White, Black ect. If this were true then the extinction of Neanderthal would have also provided the extinction of the whites in the same areas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:00, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You think that Homo sapiens is a genius?
:::: Seriously, I haven't checked the references, but I think I'm correct in saying that secular scientists have at some time in the past classified Neanderthal Man as fully human (i.e. Homo sapiens Neanderthalis), also that some people still consider him that, and ''possibly'' even that some of that second group are secular scientists.
:::: So wouldn't it be better to explain all that (or whatever the precise story is) in the body of the article, and not "take sides" by choosing one of the titles for the article title?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:23, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Homo is the genius, sapiens is the species. The way this article reads is Homo (genius) Sapiens (species), Neanderthalis (subspecies). That classification was changes upon DNA evidence and more understanding of physiological data. Look at my link to the Smithsonian's classification.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:31, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

[[Homo neanderthalensis]] already exists here, and is protected. I suggest the articles be merged (I couldn't figure out the tag). [[User:Human|Human]] 19:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

And I have a suggestion re:nomenclature. Since things are still being discovered and debated in the scientific community, why not call the article something like "neanderthal man" and address the naming issues there? [[User:Human|Human]] 19:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==History according to Creationists==
"Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons." If malnutrition was a cause of features then the features would not be passed down to their offspring. Only genetic mutation would cause this, thus speciation. Please explain this stance for as of now it A. shows that neanderthal was speciated B. that the statement is incorrect about nutrition causing the features and that they were homo sapians if they had the same nutritional avaliblity as the rest of man kind.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

The claims that Neanderthals could speak exactly as modern humans is still hotly debated by physical anthropologists. Stating this as a fact is grossly misleading. In addition, many of the cranial features of neanderthals are NOT seen in modern humans. Mainly the abscence of a chin, the extreme prognathic midface, the larger brows, and the much lower cranial vault. The occipital bones protrude alot, and sport a depression caled the suprainiac fossa for the attachment of much larger neck muscles. There also exists a retromolar gap. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree. CPWebmaster is pulling from the AIG website which has trouble finding empirical evidence for their claims on Neanderthal. Their mtDNA claim is refuted by what I posted below. They have not even updated to the new science evidence.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:03, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

OK, how do fossils prove the use of complex syntax in spoken language? Also the claim that Neanerthals used tools to create complex tools is kinda misleading as well. Neanderthals didn't make complex tools. Almost all Neanderthal lithics are in the form of scrapers, flakes, and retouch points. None of these are "complex" tools.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

===mtDNA===
In 1999, scientists successfully extracted a 345 base pair sequence of mtDNA from a second Neandertal, a 29,000 year-old fossil of a baby recently discovered in Mesmaiskaya cave in south-western Russia. (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000, Höss 2000) The results of this study were similar to the previous ones, putting the Mezmaiskaya specimen outside the range of modern human mtDNA.

In addition, the two Neandertals are fairly similar, differing from each other in 12 base pairs. The difference is greater than that usually found between pairs of modern Europeans or Asians (only 1% of whom differ in 12 or more places), but comparable to the differences between modern Africans (37% of whom differ by 12 or more).

The distance between Mezmaiskaya and a particular modern human sequence known as the reference sequence (Anderson et al. 1981) was 22, compared to 27 for the first Neandertal. (However, no figures are given for the minimum, average and maximum distances between Mezmaiskaya and modern humans; it is unclear whether Mezmaiskaya is in general closer to modern humans than Feldhofer is.)

The phylogenetic analyses of Ovchinnikov et al. show the two Neandertals grouped together, and separated from all modern humans. As with the first specimen, Mezmaiskaya also appears to be equidistant from all groups of modern humans, strengthening the conclusion that Neandertals are not closely related to modern Europeans.

Because this second individual was discovered about 2,500 km (1,500 miles) from the first, it provides very strong confirmation of the previous results.

The fact that its mtDNA was also fairly close to that of the first Neandertal makes it much less likely that Neandertals and the ancestors of modern humans were both part of an interbreeding population with a large amount of mtDNA genetic variation that has been mostly lost:

"In particular, these data reduce the likelihood that Neanderthals contained enough mtDNA sequence diversity to encompass modern human diversity" (Ovchinnikov et al. 2000)

Interestingly, the preservation of the Mezmaiskaya specimen appears to be much better than that of the Feldhofer specimen. It is so good, in fact, that there is a possibility that its entire mtDNA genome may be able to be sequenced, and there is even a possibility that some of its nuclear DNA may be retrievable.

mtDNA from a third Neandertal
In 2000, scientists announced the sequencing of a third Neandertal mtDNA specimen from a cave at Vindija, Croatia (Krings et al. 2000). When the three Neandertals are compared with modern humans, all three of them cluster together, and apart from all modern humans. This conclusion is reinforced by a study by Knight (2003). Knight excluded from the comparison sites in the mtDNA genome which are known to have mutated more than once, and which are therefore poor indicators of phylogenetic relationships. His study strongly confirmed earlier ones showing deeply divergent histories for modern human mtDNA lineages and the known Neandertal ones.

Like modern humans, Neandertals had low genetic diversity compared to apes. The diversity of the three Neandertal mtDNA sequences (3.73%) is lower than that of chimpanzees (14.82+/-5.7%) and gorillas (18.57+/-5.26%), and similar to that of modern humans worldwide (3.43+/-1.22%). If modern humans are sorted into continental groups, the diversity of the three Neandertals is similar to (within one standard deviation of) that for Africans, Asians, native Americans and Australian aboriginals, and Oceanians. Modern Europeans, who live in approximately the same region as the Neandertals, have less diversity than the Neandertals.

Still more Neandertal mtDNA
Schmitz et al. (2002) reported on a fourth Neandertal mtDNA sequence from the second Neandertal fossil found at Feldhofer, the site in Germany at which the first Neandertal fossil was found. It was closely related to the previous Neandertal mtDNA sequences.
Serre et al. (2004) were able to sequence mtDNA from four other Neandertal fossils, along with mtDNA from five early modern humans. The four Neandertals all had mtDNA similar to those found in the previous Neandertals. Serre and his colleagues found no evidence of mtDNA gene flow between modern humans and Neandertals in either direction, but could not rule out the possibility of limited gene flow. Interestingly, the mtDNA sequences from the Vindija Neandertals, which have a less extreme Neandertal anatomy than the classic Neandertals, and are considered transitional between modern humans and classic Neandertals by some scientists, were no closer to modern humans than the rest of the Neandertal fossils.

Is the Neandertal outside the human range?
Yes.

Note that because two modern human sequences are 24 bases apart, while the smallest Neandertal/human difference is only 22, does not mean the Neandertal sequence is within the range of modern humans. To use an analogy, suppose we measured the height of 994 adult humans, and they varied from 4'8" to 6'8" (a difference of 24 inches). Suppose we then found a skeleton which was 8'6" in height. No one would claim that it fell within the modern human range because it was closer to the nearest human (22 inches) than the tallest human was from the shortest human (24 inches).

Note also that the two figures (22 and 24) are measuring very different things, making it invalid to compare the two figures. Just as the Neandertal was compared against 994 modern humans, any of those humans could be similarly compared against the other 993 humans. We could compute the minimum, average, and maximum distance from that human to the other humans, just as was done for the Neandertal. If we calculated those values for all the humans, we could then calculate minimum, average and maximum values of all the individual minima, averages and maxima, and compare those values against the equivalent values for the Neandertal.

We do not know from the Krings et al. 1997 paper the distribution of minimum distances of humans from other humans. The smallest such value is 1. The largest such value might, I suspect, be as much as 5. The same value for the Neandertal is 22, well outside the human range.

For average distances of humans to other humans, we know the average value is 8.0. The minimum average distance will be a little less; the maximum average value must be at least 12 (this can be deduced from the fact that there are two humans 24 apart) and less than 24; I would guess it might be about 16 for a highly atypical human. For the Neandertal, the value is 27, again well outside the human range.

For maximum distances, the maximum such value is 24, but for most humans, the maximum distance to any other human will be less than that. The value of 24 is highly atypical, because it is taken between the two individuals who have indepently diverged farthest from mitochondrial Eve, and is the maximum of nearly half a million (994 * 993 / 2) comparisons among modern humans. For the Neandertal, the value is 36, again well outside the human range.

In other words, for all three measurements (minimum, average and maximum distances to other humans), the Neandertal measurement is much larger than the maximum value of the same measurement from a sample of 994 modern humans, and even further from the average value. The Neandertal is not merely outside the human range, but well outside it.
:--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Respect!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

==Logic==
From CPWebmaster's talk page
:<blockquote>
When it comes to origins, AIG is obviously more valid than the Smithsonian. I am aware that Homo neanderthalensis is the "accepted" species, but this is merely hopeful thinking by evolutionists. In reality, Homo neanderthalensis is HUMAN. I placed it under a sub-species because I did not want it to conflict with the human article. CPWebmaster 11:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
</blockquote>
:If homo neanderthalensis is human as you said above, then why not list it with Homo sapiens? CPWebmaster, I can not understand why you would perceive AIG as more valid than the Smithsonian. There are thousands more scientists working and submitting to the Smithsonian than AIG. This provides a more critical environment for research. AIG struggles to have PhDs write articles within the scope of their discipline. How many times have you seen a physicist write about biology at AIG? The point is that if you plan to use taxonomy to describe an organism then you must follow taxonomy rules to describe the organism. Meaning if you wish to say that Neanderthal was a subspecies of Homo sapiens then you need to list Neanderthal as Homo sapiens. Otherwise you need to place it back with homo neanderthalensis.--TimS 12:01, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know why I'm even trying to correct this article. You cannot use logic against religious conviction. No matter what we say he is still going to put a creationist slant on the article. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Do I even have to mention that based on a taxonomy the way this article is listed Neanderthal is of the same level as European, African, Asian, ect. If this is the case then why did they die out while Europeans thrived? If you place any of the other sub races of Homo sapiens into the environment they survive. (This is assuming that Neanderthal came about due to the tower of Babel, like the other races of man according to YECs)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not sure that I follow this point, but one answer is that they did survive. There is evidence of similarities with modern humans which suggests that modern humans are, in part, descended from Neanderthals. Also, one YEC idea is that their distinctive features were due to diet and conditions, not genetics, which would suggest that they were not a separate group that died out, but are humans, and humans are still here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:There is an issue about the YEC diet claim, If we are to follow the YEC timeline then Humans lived in the same areas as Neanderthals at the same time so we would show a difference among all of the remains instead of a particular group. If it was based on diet and not genetics than how is what I posted above with mtDNA found in Neanderthal remains explained? Their physiology is much different than a human, not something that could come from diet (You do not get eyebrow ridges, or extra length of ribs from diet)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:17, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Just to add if you and CPWebmaster claim that Neanderthal were humans then you should add them to the races article.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::You mean the [[Race]] article I presume? No, I wouldn't add them there, for the following reason. Creationists don't recognise that there are different races. We are all one race—the human race. So Neanderthals were not a different race. The article does list some "races", as they were formerly believed to be, but first, it doesn't say who believed this (I suspect an evolutionary basis), and second, for whatever reason, Neanderthals were, as far as I know, never considered as separate race, so it wouldn't be appropriate to add them to a list of what is actually a historical record. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:::That is the point I am making Philip. If this were the case then CPWebmaster is wrong in labeling this page as Homo Sapiens Neaderthalensis. This is why it should either be Homo Neaderthalensis or just Homo Sapiens. To add the other delineator would mean that it would be a race of human.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:47, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== editing ==
By-the-by, going in and pulling the creationist part above the evolutionist part is kinda pathetic and childish.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I would have to agree, it is a bit sophomoric. Not to mention the statement of taxonomic labeling.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Somebody found some talking fossils apparently.

==Remind me not to spend hours on an article ever again! P.S. please don't <s>stone</s> ban me for expressing my opinion (see [[First amendment]])==

Just 2 days after I wrote this article, using only reliable sources, it's already been vandalized beyond recognition, look! It even has quotes of questionable origin already!

Do we really have to have this "but creationist assert this and quote <s>mine</s> that, and the flood ..." thingy in every article, there's plenty of that on other pages.

I did not claim this article for myself, I just set some guidelines for other editors to keep it factual and respectable (most people out there aren't YECs you know!)

Why the f*ck are there no dates in the intro anymore? Do they threaten the emotional comfort of your little <s>medieval</s> sheltered world? You think you're making Jesus proud through ignorance?

And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?

And it's "Homo neanderthlalensis", not "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis" as in separate species, Tims is a molecular biologist, what are you?

What's wrong with writing an article according to the current scientific consensus? Sure I could make something up too, maybe even twist the facts just enough to make everything fit in with Egyptian mythology! But I chose to follow the experts instead.

If the reader is a YEC he's not gonna believe this article anyway!

AiG more credible than the Smithsonian?
Yeah, of course <s>a bunch of uneducated hillbillies</s> AiG's YECs are more credible than the Smithsonian's accredited biologists and archaeologists when it comes to science!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I agree with you. I thought this was conservapedia not YECpedia. No one has said that being a conservative means rejecting science as a whole. What CPWebmaster did would be considered vandalism if the POV was change.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I tried to add some stuff and keep it scientific, but I was reverted by the ConservativeChristianYoungEarthAntiScience Aganda. Just give up, this site is a joke anyway. The only reason I know about it is a student of mine actually used it as a source in writing a paper. [[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Is it that your information has been removed or merely that creationist viewpoints have been added as well? I hope both viewpoints are allowed to stand and I hope it is done in a way that is respectful to the work that each of you has put into the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunatly, no, the overlords have erased information that is scientific in nature and replaced it with their own ideas.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 14:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I have created separate articles now, with links to one another at the bottom: one for YECs and one for science, I will revert all creationist material on the evolutionary version, however I don't care about what's being written in the creationist version, feel free to add whatever "alternative worldviews" you want to that one!

YEC: [[Homo neanderthalensis (Creationist's view)|here]].

Evo: [[Homo neanderthalensis|here]]

:::stick with one article please. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] 15:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

But this one's too crappy.
And that one page would have to be called Homo neanderthalensis.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

P.S. this particular page (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) should be deleted for this to avoid confusion.

[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Your naming will never survive based upon how you have constructed it. You'll need to have separate sections with 'Creationist' in one title and 'Evolutionist' in the other. Also the article called 'Creationist' view appears to be merely a copy of the current article and is replete with information that does not match Creationist thought. You may wish to consider a different strategy if you wish to have any chance of success. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:08, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

If you don't like it (the creationist version) in its current form you can always edit it.

Evolution is the dominant theory, the default setting, creationism is an alternative for a minority.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

I am still wanting to see what CPWebmaster's logic is based on what I listed above for the genius and species of Homo Neanderthalensis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, these 3 pages seem to act like coupled photons: whatever you type on one talk page, instantaneously appears on the other two as well!
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

"No other organisms, either living or fossil, made tools to make other complex tools, buried their dead, had controlled use of fire, practiced religious ceremonies, used complex syntax in their spoken grammar, and played musical instruments, yet we know from their fossils that Neanderthal engaged in all."
I still want to know how a fossilized piece of bone can tell you about complex syntax. Last time I checked fossils don't talk.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 17:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Just a quick note, nobody will come to an "encyclopedia" like this and search for [[Homo neanderthalensis]] or [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Instead, they'll look for [[Neanderthal]] or [[Neandertal]]. They both redirect to the 'creationist' [[Homo sapiens neanderthalensis]]. Thus, MiddleMan's 'scientific' version will only be seen by a) who reads this talk page or b) from the Hominid category. [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 04:12, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

"''And yes, of course that picture of neanderthal men came from a website: I can't exactly go take a picture of a living neanderthal myself, now can I?''". You appear to be justifying using a presumably-copyright photograph on the basis that you are unable to take your own photograph of real Neanderthals. That is not justification for using copyright photographs. And my question also pertained to the map. If the images are copyright and used without permission, they will have to go, regardless of your inability to supply an alternative. Will you do the right thing or will I delete them? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

There are lots of pics without sources on this website, yet only one the ones that hits a sore spot among YECs is removed, besides the sysop who removed it didn't say anything about copyrighting, he stated "This is nothing like Neanderthals would have looked like. in reality they looks a LOT more like aps, with curved, bent hands, etc."

Interestingly, I addressed this (sadly widespread) myth in the article itself (it's also the reason why I said 100 year old books are bad sources), so if he would just have taken the time to actually read the article...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:Response in point form:
:* There being other such pictures doesn't justify these.
:* If you had brought others to my attention, I would have done the same to them. I'd invite you to now except that I gather that you are no longer around.
:* It was not because of the pictures themselves that I started questioning this; it was solely because of the copyright issue.
:* I don't know where CPWebmaster made that comment that you attribute to him; I haven't seen it, and it certainly wasn't in the edit comment for the deletion.
:As no evidence was forthcoming that there was permission to use the images, I have now deleted them from the article.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== transitional fossil? ==

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidiary branch, an evolutionary dead end."{{fact}}</blockquote>

A transitional fossil to what? Extinction? Somehow this seems an incorrect usage. There is no linkage from one form to another. Perhaps the following wording should be employed?

<blockquote>"Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but formed along a subsidiary branch that ended in extinction."{{fact}}</blockquote>

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:51, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

You're quit right, I changed it accordingly.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Advice to evolutionists ==

I was going to write a piece here with the title above, but because this sort of issue has come up so often, I decided to create a sub-page of my user page to hold it instead. It relates particularly to this dispute, so I urge editors here to read my comments at [[User:Philip J. Rayment/Advice to evolutionists]]. I will, however, make some further comments on this page to some specific points. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

:Philip I read and understood your points in your article. The issue I think that has to be presented is that this website claims that it is Conservative in nature not exclusively YEC. Therefore to edit strictly in a YEC POV would be falsifying the claim of the website. Even Andy has stated that this website is not specifically YEC.
::No, Conservapedia does not have a specifically YEC agenda. But our rules do not allow the kind of speculation-as-fact claims that are found on Wikipedia and other sites concerning an old earth or evolution or any other predominantly liberal ideology. Thanks.--Aschlafly 08:03, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:So to claim that it is would be misleading. My issue with this page is the incorrect naming style used. If you are going to use scientific terminology then you need to get it right. If what CPWebmaster is true then this article should be moved under Homo sapiens. If not then he needs to correct it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:09, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for reading it.
::I wasn't suggesting editing in a YEC POV. I was pointing out that despite the YEC point of view that will not allow articles to be edited in an evolutionary POV, evolutionary editors continue to edit in an evolutionary POV rather than a more neutral POV that should (hopefully) be acceptable to both sides.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:28, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know that timelines of the earth are geological based not evolutionary based. If we were to edit on a neutral POV then the edits that CPWebmaster did would have been reverted since they strictly removed scientific data to cause the article a more creationsit POV.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:33, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

==Advice to Young Earth Creationists==
You've got your YEC box in my article (Homo Neanderhalensis, without the sapiens), don't you prefer it's clear presentation of creationist objections over the usual chaotic torrent of out-of-context quotes, unsound "facts" and numerous AiG links that make up most YEC sections on this site?
You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D (I still think he's nutts though), don't you understand that that single link, has, to me (and other "evolutionists"), far more value than all the quotes and AiG links in the [[Dinosaur]] article combined?

Just look at the Dinosaur article, it's a complete mess composed of contradicting sections and contradictions within sections, out-of-context-quotes, and the kind of "scientific facts" that any college freshman can debunk on a spare afternoon.
And in the end the article reads like a debate and doesn't really tell the reader anything about actual dinosaurs.
That's what I meant by "go vandalize the Dinosaur article".

If you're going to add YEC stuff, then keep it separated from the rest of the article (don't make one sentence contradict the next one), don't use quotes (no scientist uses quotes), and only add points which have a reasonable chance of surviving the debunk attempts of a college freshman, you have to know what you're talking about before posting it, if necessary, do some research on the math or the science behind it.

Don't question every scientific theory down to the very laws of physics, and don't say every theory is just a theory (you trust science when you fly on an airplane, use GPS, watch tv, and you trust scientist's calculations regarding the highly explosive chemical processes that take place under the hood of your car, don't you?)

And if you're going to question a scientific theory then be consistent, meaning you can't use other science, related to that theory, somewhere else:

- if you question carbon half lives, you also question
nuclear physic, meaning you question nuclear power, and A-bombs as well, and even question highschool chemistry.

- if you question the value of the speed of light, you question relativity and thus you can't trust your GPS system either, you'd also question quantum mechanics.

Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists (like John Hartnett, for example), and never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible.

Then, maybe YECs won't be ridiculed all the time...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

:What I have seen too many times is evolutionary baseed information being removed because it isn't "factual" and at the same time the YEC sections getting bigger and bigger. As far as I know YEC isn't a "fact" either, but I rarely see any of that stuff being edited out.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 12:16, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::There are a number of articles with creationist views that I'm not happy with, but would have a fight on my hands if I tried altering them, so I'm not going to defend everything, but parts of your message still warrants a response.
::"''You yourself linked to Dr. John Hartnett once, who actually has a Ph. D''". As do lots of creationists. This sort of anti-creationist loaded language is part of the problem.
::Despite my comments above, I think the [[Dinosaur]] article is actually quite reasonable (apart from needing more information about the dinosaurs themselves). If you were still around, I'd invite you to point out ''specific'' problems, because all you've done so far is throw mud.
::"''(no scientist uses quotes)''". Incorrect.
::"''...don't say every theory is just a theory...''" I haven't seen anyone do that.
::Much of your comment on science ignores the difference between [[Physical science|operational science and origins science]].
::"''Finally, try to link to non-creationist websites and accredited scientists... ''". What's wrong with linking to creationist web-sites with accredited scientists?
::"''never, ever use the Bible as a reference: if your theories are correct you should be able to find evidence outside of the Bible''". We can't use the Bible as a reference for what Christians believe? And often the best evidence is documented eye-witness testimony, which is what the Bible is, so it is often the only available evidence; why overlook it just because bibliosceptics don't like it?
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:34, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== There is no evidence to suggest that Neanderthals could not speak like modern humans. ==

This seems a bit of a lame quote. There's no evidence to suggest that T Rex could not speak like modern humans either, should we therefore conclude that they ''could'' talk? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:44, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Neanderthal

2007-05-11T22:38:35Z

Chrysogonus: typos

The first fossil humanoid to be identified as such, and the best known, named after remains found in the [[Neanderthal]] valley in western [[Germany]] in 1856. ''Homo (sapiens) neanderthalensis'' is found throughout [[Europe]] and the [[Near East]] and also the remainder of the [[Old World]] in variant forms, during the late Middle and Upper Pleistocene circa 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. Within western Europe the remains are associated with the middle [[palaeolithic]] [[Mousterian]] stone tool industries that disappeared with the arrival of [[Cro-magnon]] man.

Neanderthal man developed from ''Homo erectus'', though the widespread distribution of intermediate form hinders an attempt to resolve any single geographical locality as the place of development. The fate of Neanderthals is equally hard ot determine: they either became assimilated into encroaching human populations or merely died out.

Neanderthal was a fully erect biped of stocky build, with a long low skull, prominent brow ridges and [[occiputs]], and a jutting face. The popular impression of him as a stooping brute is incorrect and derives from the original poor reconstruction in the Neanderthal valley. It has also been suggested that the first individual found suffered from vitamin D defieiency ([[rickets]]) or [[syphilis]].

Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans, but their remains are examples of [[transitional fossil]]s along a subsidary branch.

[[Category:Primates]]

Talk:Humus

2007-05-07T21:14:47Z

Chrysogonus:

== it's hummus, not humus ==

Not really. Humus is a perfectly acceptable spelling. See, for instance

#http://www.greek-recipe.com/static/content/Chickpea_dip.html
#http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1885
#http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/sip-sak/menu1.html ''(see second appetizer)''
#http://www.galaxylink.com.hk/~john/food/cooking/turkish/humus.htm

Talk:Humus

2007-05-07T21:14:09Z

Chrysogonus: New page: == it's hummus, not humus == Not really. Humus is a perfectly acceptable spelling. See, for instance http://www.greek-recipe.com/static/content/Chickpea_dip.html http://www.bridgesforp...

== it's hummus, not humus ==

Not really. Humus is a perfectly acceptable spelling. See, for instance

http://www.greek-recipe.com/static/content/Chickpea_dip.html
http://www.bridgesforpeace.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1885
http://nymag.com/listings/restaurant/sip-sak/menu1.html ''(see second appetizer)''
http://www.galaxylink.com.hk/~john/food/cooking/turkish/humus.htm

Talk:Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia

2007-05-07T21:06:52Z

Chrysogonus:

What I really can't understand is why is there so much focus here on Conservapedia slamming liberals? This website is advertised as conservative - why not focus more on furthering your own arguments and agendas as opposed to ridiculing others? The [[Deceit]] article is a prime example of this. You present that article as if liberals are the only people capable of deceit. How is this socially responsible?

It would seem that [[Mockery]] is just as much a part of some Conservatives arsenals as it is the Liberals. As both a Christian and a Conservative, I despise deceit and mockery as being the tools of a weak mind. Opinion is just that but facts are golden. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:29, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Granted, I'm sure you could point out websites where liberals in turn do the same things to conservatives. I am not trying to say conservatives are bad people. I just don't think you advance your point of view very effectively by slinging mud - bolster your own viewpoints instead. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, this site has a clear agenda to ridicule liberals. Perhaps you should rename this site to www.antiliberalpedia.com--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Even as a sysop, I'm a little uncomfortable with implying that all liberals are deceitful, given that my mother is liberal. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:32, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Dan, I feel that you are far from alone in your concerns about the direction this site is taking. Your mother's liberalism notwithstanding, the unsourced, extreme and unnecessary criticisms of liberalism do seem to be a case of the lady protesting too much. I suggest that you resign your status until the owner and panel are more clear about what they want this place to '''be'''.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm liberal, and I find it quite amusing, reminiscent of our old friend Richard. As for the second point brought up in this article; for commandment 3 to be enforced, we would have to delete [[Homosexuality]], [[Heterosexuality]], [[Procreation]], [[Fornication]], and [[Bisexuality]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Looks like someone beat you to it to [[Bisexuality]] ; ) [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:36, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:That wasn't me, it was [[User:Ed Poor|Ed]] ;-). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

And there goes Fornication! Two down, three to go. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 17:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I dunno...seems a whole lot lot of discussion (and articles) that say liberals believe this, and they are stupid for doing so. Let's face it, a lot of times political discussion disolves into personal name calling. In your article you generalize about liberals, but take this into consideration: the liberals on here who don't break commandments, contribute to articles, show intelligence, and help make this a better site probably aren't noticed (or at least singled out as liberals). It's easy to take the lowest common denominator and say it's representative of the whole. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 14:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sir... ==

Do you see neither the danger in, nor basic wrong-headedness of, sweeping generalisations re. a particular group's character and "typical" behaviours?

The historical precedents for such modes of talk are unfortunate, to say the least. The Jew, the Negro, the Bourgeoisie.....all have been fastened with a similarly reductionist pin at one time or another. Whilst I'm sure you would wish to join with me in condemning this ignoble tradition, your words have a resonance that does you no credit.

If this site attracts ridicule, then you must ''at least consider the possibility'' that this is because it ''deserves'' it. You have an opportunity here to shape how the wider world perceives your particular branch of Christianity. Unless your intent was to create a general impression of mean-spirited and contrary<ref>''kuhn-'''trair'''-ee'' - perverse; stubbornly opposed or willful. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=contrary</ref> zealotry, then it is one you have singularly failed to grasp.

<references/>

--[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 13:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
I put what I've put at another place on CP, with some additions:

Wouldn't it be nice if we started from the assumption that all people are good-natured and mean well, rather than starting from our preconceived notions of what we expect people to act like? After all, there is a political spectrum, there are people who don't consider themselves as "strongly liberal" or "strongly conservative," and who remove themselves from the political system because of the bickering between the extremes on both sides. Furthermore there are anti-abortion anti-gun law folks out there. In the words of Barack Obama: "The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." Not every person neatly fits into one category or another. That we start out with an assumption that person will act or believe because of a label is truly sad (shame on all of us), and worse, if we start with a label on ourselves and create our belief system with no internal introspection, that is far more sad. God or nature wouldn't haven't given us brains if we weren't to use them.

And continuing: This should be required reading for all new contributors here. Let all the newcomers, of whatever political persuation, decide whether they really want to be a part of this project. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 21:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: I can't imagine the content page genuinely offending anyone. But offense or not, behavior can and should be scientifically studied. We have hundreds of journals publishing papers on behavior about every aspect of society. What's wrong with studying liberal behavior? I wouldn't object to a study of conservative behavior, styles of arguing, conduct on a website, etc. In fact, I'd welcome it, because we can all learn from it and improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Since this is a scientific study, I’d like to know a bit about your methodology.
::How did you identify which users were liberal? What was your classification system? How many posts did a user have to make before being included in the study? Did you compare liberal users to conservative users? How many users had to exhibit a behavior before it was classified as a liberal behavior? What percentage of all users did your study include?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:13, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*If it looks, walks like a duck, and quacks like one, I know it is a duck. Same for Conservative's and Liberal's. It is a pretty common sense deal, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:21, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I’m going to go with “no”. There is a much larger political spectrum than liberal or conservative, and, aside from the problems inherent in trying to confine a multiplicity of views to a bipolar spectrum, people can and do hide their true political leanings. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Who said anything about criticizing anyone? I'm just saying that it's obvious to me that the management has already judged the editors on this site, not by their edits, but by their political persuations. I'm embarrased for Conservapedia that this essay even exists. If you can't see the problem with this essay, then you are blinded by your own views. (And sure, go ahead, block me. At this point I don't know why any person--conservative or liberal--would truly want to continue to edit here, if the management is this biased. Conservapedia is doomed if it isolates its volunteer editors.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== The 6-times criticism ==

Well, I would say it's because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be biased. However, I won't start an argument. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbohacker]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 22:10, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Wow ==

What an extraordinary essay. I realise that everybody is ideologically blinded to a certain extent, but I've seen it on Conservapedia to an eye-opening extent. Frequently 'Liberals' are accused of things that the accusor themselves has done, or has tacitly approved others doing. I could go through the whole list and provide instances of Conservatives doing exactly the same things as Liberals have been accused of doing, but that would be tedious. So I'll just concentrate on a few instances.

* Are Liberals more aggressive than Conservatives (point 1)? Increasingly I've seen sysops using veiled threats along the lines of 'Don't post here again if you know what's good for you'.

* Point 11 states that Liberals cite authorities to support their point of view rather than citing evidence. However, all of the articles regarding matters relating to YEC cite almost exclusively from websites such as creationwiki or answersingenesis. Only this morning I objected to a reference in the Wombat article which didn't at all address the issue it was supposed to be supporting; this has now been changed, and now the citation is for an essay which says that a land bridge ''might'' have existed between Europe and Australia without providing any evidence. Although I suppose in accordance with point 4, these editors who are claiming to be Conservative and making these dodgy links are probably actually just Liberals.

* Point 6 appears to be suggesting that Liberals are frequently deceitful, without noting that Conservatives are often deceitful themselves, for example in the case of point 7 which claims that Liberals are objecting to the banning of obscenity rather than objecting to the rather arbitrary notions of what constitues obscenity here.

* The claim that this was a scientific study is either deceitful (point 6) or an inability to provide citations and proper methodology for the study (possibly violating point 11) or maybe even a failure to rely on logic (point 5)

[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:06, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

*

Yeast

2007-05-07T20:40:05Z

Chrysogonus:

A '''yeast''' is a single-celled [[fungi|fungus]]. It is related to other fungi that people are more familiar with. These include edible [[mushroom]]s which are available at the local supermarket, common baker’s yeast used to leaven [[bread]], [[mold]]s that ripen blue [[cheese]] as well as molds that produce [[antibiotic]]s for medical and veterinary use. Many consider edible yeast and fungi to be as natural as fruits and vegetables.

==Yeast Cells==

Over 600 different species of yeast are known and God has widely distributed them in nature. They are found in association with other microorganisms as part of the normal inhabitants of [[soil]], vegetation, marine and other aqueous environments. Some yeast species are also natural inhabitants of [[man]] and animals. While some species are highly specialized and found only in certain habitats at certain times of the year, other species are generalists and can be isolated from many different sources.

Baker’s (or brewer's) yeast (''Saccharomyces cerevisiae'') is used to leaven bread throughout the world and it is the type of yeast that people are most familiar with. It is also used in making beer and wine, although sometimes other closely related species such as ''Saccharomyces carlsbergensis'' or ''Saccharomyces bayanus'' are used instead.

A typical yeast cell is approximately equal in size to a human [[red blood cell]] and is spherical to ellipsoidal in shape. Because it is so very tiny, it takes about 30 billion yeast cells to make up to one gram of compressed baker’s yeast. Yeasts reproduce magnanimously by budding, a process during which a new bud grows from the side of the existing cell wall. This bud eventually breaks away from the mother cell to form a separate daughter cell. Each budding yeast cell, on average, undergoes this budding process 12 to 15 times before it is no longer capable of budding. During commercial production, yeast is grown under carefully controlled conditions on a [[sugar]] containing medium typically composed of [[beet]] and [[cane]] molasses. Under ideal growth conditions a yeast cell reproduces every two to three hours.

==Other notable yeasts==

''Schizosacharomyces pombe'' is a yeast first isolated from East Afrian millet beer (''pombe'' is the Swahili word for beer). However, it is most important as a laboratory experimental organism for the investigation of cell biology. Sir Paul Nurse won the 2001 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine for his discoveries of how the cell division cycle is regulated in ''S. pombe''. <ref> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/ </ref>

''Candida albicans'' is a common [[commensal]] yeast which lives on human skin and in the gut. About 50% of people carry it, with no noticeable effect. It is most well known as the cause of thrush, although less frequently it can cause nasty oral infections. In severely immunocompromised patients it can spread through the body and invade vital organs, with a high mortality rate. <ref> http://www.healthscout.com/ency/68/312/main.html </ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Food and drink]]
[[Category:Fungi]]
[[Category:microbiology]]

Eukaryote

2007-05-07T20:39:33Z

Chrysogonus: Not really a microbiology page

The most characteristic feature of a eukaryotic cell, the nucleus, consists of a nucleoplasm surrounded by a double nuclear membrane pierced by nuclear pores. <ref>http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.html</ref><ref>http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Eukaryote</ref> The nucleoplasm contains the (linear) chromosomes of the cell, which are organised into heterochromatin, which stains only a little, and euchromatin, which stains more densely. The most important euchromatic area is the nucleolus, in which ribosomes are formed.

#εύ-καρυον (eu-karyon) - true kernel.
#Double-membrane bound nucleus containing linear chromosomes.
#Complex 9+2-type undulipodium, cytoskeleton, cytosis and mitosis.
#Many membrane-bound organelles and double membrane-bound endosymbionts.
#They can grow 'large' because cytoplasmic streaming allows rapid transport across the cell - 100 μm.

[[Image:Animal_cell.png‎ |center||Animal cell: eukaryotic cells are characterised by the possession of a nucleus and membrane bound organelles.]]

The role of the nucleus is three-fold:

#Storage and protection of the genome.
#Regulation of gene expression.
#Creation of ribosomes.

DNA storage takes up about 10% of the cell of both prokaryotes (nucleoid area) and eukaryotes (nucleus). However, don't forget that some of the genome lives elsewhere: plasmids, endosymbionts (mitochondria), etc. The nucleus of eukaryotes also protects the genome from the cytoskeleton. Condensation of genome during mitosis is required to withstand these stresses. This is not relevant in prokaryotes, as they lack a cytoskeleton. The existence of the nucleus permits processing of mRNA, and therefore defers translation. Alternative splicing can be performed to generate different proteins from the same RNA primary transcript. mRNA is capped and tailed to permit it to exit the nucleus. rRNA and tRNA are also heavily processed by RNA editing, i.e. base modification (this also occurs to some mRNA in trypanosomes). rRNA modification occurs in the nucleolus, where ribosomes are constructed.

The nucleus is bound by a double-membrane, which is contiguous through the nuclear pores, known as the nuclear envelope. The pores are required to allow RNA out and membrane lipids in (which is needed for growth during S phase).<ref> Berg, Jeremy M.; Tymoczko, John L.; and Stryer, Lubert."Biochemistry". W. H. Freeman and Co. ; c2002 </ref>

The inner face of the inner nuclear envelope (INE) is coated by the nuclear lamina, which contains intermediate fibres called lamins A, B and C (at least in mammals). Phosphorylation of lamins by kinases cause nuclear envelope breakdown during prometaphase. Chromosomes occupy definite positions within the nucleus because of the interaction between lamins and telomeres, for example the Rabl conformation in yeast.

In the Rabl conformation, the centromeres are at the pole closest to MTOC; and the telomeres at other, bound to the nuclear lamina. This orientation probably reduces tangling, and is inherited from mitosis. Later in interphase, the chromosomes may lose the Rabl conformation, but chromosomes still occupy discrete territories in the nucleus.

The outer nuclear envelope (ONE) is surrounded by other intermediate fibres, and is essentially just the RER surrounding the nucleus, and continuous with it. The space between the INE and ONE is termed the perinuclear space, and is continuous with the RER cisternae.

The cell wall of eukaryotes (when present) is usually composed of a β-(1→4)-glucan of some sort. In fungi, it is mostly chitin (N-acetylaminoglucan), in plants cellulose, but more exotic ingredients are common. Animal cells lack a wall, but may have a glycocalyx, which is a layer of thickened glycoproteins surrounding them and connecting them to the extracellular matrix.

Almost all eukaryotes have mitochondria, which are the remains of bacteria that became endosymbionts of the eukaryotic cell about a billion years ago. They perform oxidative phosphorylation and generate energy in the form of ATP for the cell. They have their own 70S ribosomes and some of their own DNA. Mitochondria have a double membrane surrounding them, the inner one is highly folded into cristae, surrounding a matrix space.

Photosynthetic eukaryotes also have chloroplasts, which are the remains of cyanobacteria that also became endosymbiotic. They have a triple membrane system. The outer membrane surrounds the inner membrane, which itself surrounds the stroma, in which are embedded a number of thylakoid membranes, some of which occur in stacks called grana. Those that are unstacked are termed intergrana. The thylakoids surround another compartment, termed the lumen. Chloroplasts are one of several different sorts of plastid. Others include proplasts (immature plastids), chromoplasts (full of pigments), etioplasts (formed in the dark) and amyloplasts (full of starch). Plastids carry out photosynthesis, converting light energy into ATP and NADH.

[[Image:Plant_cell.png|center||Plant cell: The cell wall vs the cell membrane found in animal cells.]]

Eukaryotes have a cytoskeleton, which is composed of a number of interacting fibre types. The first are the actin microfilaments, which, with the motor protein myosin, form the muscles of the cytoskeleton (and in sarcosomes, form actual muscles too). The actin cytoskeleton forms a cortex beneath the plasmalemma of most eukaryotic cells, which is involved in changes to the external shape of the cell (such as the formation of pseudopodia in amoebae).The second fibre type are intermediate filaments, composed of spectrin, keratin, vimentin, nuclear lamins and other proteins. The intermediate filaments help maintain the relative positions of organelles and give the cell mechanical strength. The third type of cytoskeletal filament are the microtubules, which form the spindle during cell divisions (meiosis and mitosis), and give structure to the cell membrane, forming microvilli. They also form undulipodia, which are waving structures with a typical 9+2 structure, found in cilia (short undulipodia) and flagella (longer ones). The microtubules are composed of tubulin, and are organised by a microtubule organising centre (the centrosome and centrioles in animals), in which the − ends of the microtubules (which grow more slowly than the + ends) are embedded. Vesicles traffic along the microtubules under the influence of motor proteins such as kinesin (which transports items from the −→+ ends, i.e. away from the MTOC) and dynein (which traffics items from +→−). Tubulin is homologous to the FtsZ protein that is involved in bacterial fission.

The body of the cell is composed of a heterogeneous mixture of proteins and solutes called the cytosol. The cytosol contains many 80S ribosomes, on which protein synthesis takes place.

The endomembranes and plasmalemma form a continuous membrane system in the eukaryote cell. The cell contains a rich diversity of membranes, in addition to those found in the endosymbiotic organelles. The outer cell membrane or plasmalemma, controls what gets in and out of the cell by the use of pores, symports, antiports and pumps. It is composed of a fluid mosaic of proteins embedded in a phospholipid bilayer, as are all membranes. The plasmalemma also interacts with the extracellular space through receptors, gap junctions, plasmodesmata, and synapses.

The endomembranes include the nuclear membrane, already mentioned, and the rough and smooth endoplasmic reticula (RER and SER). The lamellae of the rough endoplasmic reticulum are continuous throughout the cell, and also contiguous with the nuclear membrane. They are the site of synthesis for proteins destined for the endomembrane system and the extracellular space, with which its lumen (the cisternal space) is topologically identical. The tubules of the SER are responsible for steroid and lipid synthesis. After translation on ribosomes attached to the RER, proteins are carried in small transport vesicles to the Golgi bodies (dictyosomes), where they go undergo modification to the glycosylation they received as they were imported into the RER. After modification, some proteins are exported from the trans-Golgi network in export vesicles to the extracellular space. The ER is continuous with the nuclear envelope, and probably evolved at the same time, possibly by invaginations of the sort seen in the mesosomes of bacteria.

[[Image:Endomembranes_evolution.png‎|center||Endomembranes probably evolved from invaginations of the plasmalemma, as seen in bacterial mesosomes, thylakoids and chromatophores.]]

The rough ER differs from the smooth ER morphologically. The RER's cytoplasmic surface is studded with ribosomes, and it has flattened cisternae (rather than tubular ones). The RER is denser than SER due to presence of ribosomes. Consequently, disrupted ER 'microsomes' can be separated using density gradient centrifugation.

[[Image:Density_gradient_er.png|center||SER microsomes are less dense than RER microsomes, so can be separated by centrifugation.]]

Other proteins are destined for the endolysosome system. Material engulfed from outside by phagocytosis (solids) and pinocytosis (liquids) are packaged into phagosomes, and internal organelles destined for destruction are packed into autophagosomes. Endolysosomes containing digestive enzymes fuse with the phagosomes and digest their contents. The fused organelles produced are the cells disposal system, and are called lysosomes. Very large lysosomes are found in plants where they help to bulk the cell with water. Here they are called vacuoles, and are surrounded by a membrane called to tonoplast. Other vacuoles are involved in osmoregulation: for example contractile vacuoles in Amoeba.

Finally, a number of smaller vesicles are found in the cytosol. They are called microsomes, and most seem to be peroxisomes, containing the enzyme catalase, which degrades hydrogen peroxide produced by respiration. In germinating plant seed, many glyoxysomes are present, which perform fat oxidation for growth. Some vesicles also contain food reserves, such as fat droplets.

Eukaryotic DNA is bound by histones, and requires some degree of unpacking for expression. Much of their genome is composed of parasitic DNA and introns. Three RNA polymerases exists, (approximately) one for each sort of major RNA product:

RNApol-I - rRNA.
RNApol-II - mRNA and snRNA.
RNApol-III - tRNA and 5S rRNA.
RNA is heavily processed in the nucleus, which allows deferred translation. They possess large 80S ribosomes.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Cellular Biology]]

Talk:North America

2007-05-07T11:10:53Z

Chrysogonus:

Re, Greenland. That's an interresting thought.

: ''but as Greenland is actually a territory of Denmark, it is technically part of Europe.'' But French Guyana is constitutionally a Departement of Metropolitan France. I don't think anyone would classify French Guyana as - geographically - part of Europe. [[User:Unthank|Unthank]] 07:01, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The article says that North America is partly in the Northern Hemisphere - what part of it is not? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:10, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Wombat

2007-05-07T09:52:27Z

Chrysogonus:

Once again, it would be helpful to have actual evidence to back up the creationist ideas here. Evidence does not mean quoting an opinion from creationist books, but actual physical, observable evidence. Thanks. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It's interesting to note that Reference 4 does not in any way support the assertion that it is supposed to be verifying - that there was a land bridge between Australia and Europe. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 05:52, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Humus

2007-05-04T23:05:49Z

Chrysogonus:

'''Humus''' is source of the [[organic]] content in [[soil]]. It consists of the decayed remains of once-living creatures.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 2000</ref>

It is a very important component in the quality of topsoil, as it brings back to plant roots the nutrients they need, and adds to the friability of the soil (its ability to hold moisture and air by not clumping or packing down).

Humus is the end product of [[decomposition]] of dead leaves, wood, and animal matter by smaller and smaller organisms. Initially, larger creatures tear up the dead matter to obtain whatever food they can (ie, squirrels eating th meat of nuts, scavengers eating meat off carcasses). Then various [[insect]]s, [[fungi]] and [[bacteria]] start to consume and break down the remaining tissues. The action of [[earthworm]]s helps work this material below the surface, where it does the most good.

Humus is also a Middle Eastern dip made of [[chickpea]]s and [[tahini]]. It can also be spelt houmous, hummus or hommus.

[[category:ecology]]

==References==
<references/>

Romney

2007-05-04T22:51:27Z

Chrysogonus:

The Romney is a breed of sheep characterised by a fine fleece and tasty flesh. It originated in the marshlands of Kent but its resistance to foot rot and harsh weather mean that it has thrived when exported to New Zealand and the Falkland Islands.

==References==

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/sheep/romney/

http://www.americanromney.org/

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T22:21:31Z

Chrysogonus:

==Theory of Evolution==

How does this relate to astronomy? Astronomy was a science hundreds of years before Darwin. "evolution of the universe" Is being used way out of context to place it in the same reference as Theory of Evolution. Conservative, why the need for YEC views? Do we have to start adding OEC views as well as the views from all the different sects of Christianity?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:24, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::There is a need for conservative views at '''Conserv'''apedia. YEC is very conservative. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::So what about OEC? Or other Christian sects? YEC is conservative to YECs but not to everyone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:You did not answer the question about TOE. I do not understand the grounds of your statement other than trying to find another platform to try to slander the theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I wrote: "For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".[1]" I proved the previous statement. Case closed.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Case close? Your cite has nothing to do with the relationship between TOE and the evolution of the universe statement.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:37, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Tim, if you would stop using inflammatory terms like ''slander'' perhaps your points would be easier to follow.
*Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community.
The theory of evolution is not a person. Even if someone is called the "father of evolution", that does not give the idea personhood. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed the definition of Slander –noun 1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: You can slander an idea. That is besides the point the issue is that conservative goes out of his way to slander TOE in any scientific article he can. This is just getting ridiculous. The article is about astronomy for goodness sakes, where would TOE fit in? The cite that he used showed no relationship but he had the time, and nerve, to create a false impression. This is the issue, personaly I see this as vandalism (Unrelated content being place just for one's POV).--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==excluding earth?==

I'm deleting "excluding earth". Astronomers work with the earth, too, as a body in space. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:OK, it's back in. Why? Without factoring in the earth's motion and gravity, it would have been much harder to know where to look for Neptune, Uranus, and Pluto. But at least the article itself has become real again. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Nice quote mining, by the way. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Now that is just sad==

You know Conservative if I were to do the same thing you just did to astronomy, but using an evolutionary POV it would be vandlism. Colin was in the right changing your edits since they were unjustified for this page.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 22:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:EDIT WAR!!! Ended by sysop protection with no discussion. Why can't all of Colin's text be used, followed by the YEC stuff? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Opinion stated as fact ==

We don't state liberal opinion as fact here. ColinR inserted, "The fact that radiotelescopes can detect the light of stars billions of light years away proves that the universe is billions of years old, as the light must have left those stars that long ago to reach us now travelling at the speed of light."

No credible, unbiased scientist would claim that "proves" billions of years old, and no citation was given for it. That's a liberal opinion and should be stated as such, if stated at all. There are many reasons why that falls short of a "proof".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a liberal opinion that velocity = distance divided by time? News to me, Aschlafly. To figure out the time light has traveled, simple take the distance divided by the speed of light. ColinR is correct. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 23:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

The line about 'proving' the universe to be billions of years old can be left out without omitting the section on recent research, which is well supported by evidence. To remove this while only leaving in the Young Earth Creationist stuff and then locking the article to prevent editing is risible. Here is the excised material, from which I have removed the disputed last sentence. Please unlock the article so that this can be reinserted. It does your project no favors at all to ignore scientific research in favor of YEC theories. At least you can present both and let the reader decide.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Recent research==

Astronomers have searched for ways to find out accurately how old a [[star]] is. A new technique called gyrochronology, which works this out based on the star’s rate of rotation, has just been announced and will be published in the Astrophysical Journal. <ref> http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=5479</ref> Knowing the age of the host star of a [[planetary system]] helps astronomers understand how planetary systems change over time.

The research shows that the rotation period of a star changes steadily and predictably in line with its age and color. Thus, by measuring two of these attributes you can determine the third. The star’s color is a visible sign of its [[mass]] or surface temperature. The age of the [[[Sun]] is believed by astronomers to be 4.6 billion years <ref> http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/handouts/Energy-of-Sun-better.PDF </ref> and can be used to calibrate the gyrochronology of most other stars.

There are other methods of working out a star’s age, but they have much larger uncertainties than gyrochronology. Unlike some other methods, gyrochronology also works well for stars not found in star clusters (‘field’ stars). It is used to calculate the age of stars that burn their hydrogen fuel at a predictable and steady rate; it does not work so well for younger stars, although the researchers hope to do future work to extend the method to these.

The forthcoming [[NASA]] Kepler Mission will yield more information about the rotation period of other stars, as this is information gleaned while searching for the transit of new planets orbiting across their disks. Once researchers have more precise ages for stars, other problems of chronometry can be solved and a better study made of the way astronomical phenomena change through time, using the stars themselves as clocks. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:12, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"believed by astronomers"; what does this mean? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem revising the version I was using, I'll agree it needs a lot of work. But this entry is on '''astronomy''' not evolution, not YEC, not OEC, etc. Astronomy has little, if not nothing, to do with evolution. Cosmology, yes. Astronomy, no. Moreover, Conservative's overused misquotes are simply that. Overused misquotes. They have nothing to do with the actual field of astronomy, that is the study of space. The revision I used didn't repeat the same junk that Conservative posts on any article that doesn't fit his ideology. NOWHERE in this site has YEC been officially endorsed. Even so, Conservative is bent on advancing that view anywhere he can. The current revision discusses geology and the Big Bang '''theory''', with Big Bang being the only thing that actually is somewhat relevant to an entry on astronomy, though it has no place other than a brief mention. The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption." Given this, it is a discredit to ignore their hard work because it doesn't fit in with your "facts." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 23:31, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Ok, so it is a fact they beleive it, the question is, what facts do they beleive? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary astronomy is "the study of objects and matter outside the earth's atmosphere and of their physical and chemical properties." [1] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Facts==
I'm confused here, and as an hostotian, not without good reason. It is a scientific fact there are 8 planets. One year ago it was a scientific fact there were 9 planets. Now, in historical reporting which "fact" do I use? And one reason I got into history is because I don't follow the fads of the moment, which the 8 planet fact theory currently dominates. How do I know science, or what it calls facts, won't change again tomorrow? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:It's like the word "alive". It has a colloquial meaning, and science has worked with and suffered the consequences. The planets used to be the "wanderers" - the "stars" that moved about the firmament. There used to be 5 known to man (Hg, V, M, J, S) As we got to know our system better, we readily found U & N, and the tiny P. Then we found tens of thousands more and the distinctions blurred. Especially with the identification of a couple of rocks that, were Pluto to be a plant, they would be to. So the a definition was created that pretty much limits the word "planet" to the first eight. By the way, "history" is constantly undergoing revision and deeper understanding, too. [[User:Human|Human]] 00:24, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::So facts today may not be facts tomorrow. I thought facts existed in nature, independent and observable; I didn't know facts were established by concensus, only to be revised later. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:52, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::You're confusing actual facts with terminology and jargon. It is a fact that Pluto exists. It is no longer considered a planet under the current definition, but the definition was never a "fact." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== Forgive me ==

Please forgive my ignorance, but I have studied a little astonomy and a lot of theology and I'm not sure why the astronomy page has only a short paragraph on astronomy, then a bunch of stuff that is important to state, but is really kind of fringe among even devout Christians. Explain? Or am I overstepping my bounds? The above comment, for example, is sort of irrelevant. Just because some discoveries have been made and definitions changed doesn't change physics.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 23:10, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:So the bottom line is facts, according to accepted "science", are voted upon, they are not something that exist in nature? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know where to jump in here, but I've seen two objectionable liberal edits:

* claiming that something "proves" the universe is billion of years old, which is a liberal opinion that did not even have a citation. No objective, credible scientist would claim "proof" of that view.

* deleting actual quotes by scientists, apparently under the view explained in [[quote mining]] that it is improper to quote someone for a statement critical of his own beliefs. Those quotes are factual and informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, I never asserted the universe is billions of years old, I simply reverted to a version that said this. If you want to change it, please, feel free to. Second, if they are actual quotes by scientists, it should be no problem to cite the original article. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, ColinR's argument does prove that the Universe is billions of years old. The equation is time = distance divided by velocity. Plug in the distance to a distant galaxy, divide by the speed of light, and you get an answer that is billions of years. Billions of years is greater than 6000 years. There's no opinion here at all. --[[User:Mackronking2|Mackronking2]] 00:17, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Interesting premise, the problem is ColinR does not even make the arguement you claim. He says,
:*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:All ColinR claims is '''''it is a fact''''' that scientists beleive something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they beleive.
:I beleive it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I beleive it make it real? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Is your fact supported by many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:34, 4 May 2007 (EDT)\

:::Ok, why don't you rephrase this statement,
:::*'' The fact still remains that astronomers regard the universe to be 14.6 (approx.) years old and base all their research on this "assumption."''
:::and '''show us what the factual conclusions are''', other than the fact that "many years of research and the combined efforts of thousands of other astrophysicists" beleive something or other. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Do you really want me to explain how our current understanding of astronomy was derived? I can, but I'll admit, I can't do it justice, unlike several astro professors I've had who could. If you're asking me to outline every "fact," then you're asking the impossible and refusing to accept the basic nature of science. New information leads to changes. Case in point, discovery of other trans-Neptunian objects, leading to the reclassification of Pluto. So, please, clarify what you want, Rob. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:57, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::I think you may be seeing this is really a discussion about logic. I only asked for conclusions. They can't give factual conclusions, and they will tell you so. All they can say is "most people (in the field) beleive...". And it would ''in fact'' be bad science to represent what they beleive as facts, because ''they'' don't, and they ''can't''. Even a scientist who, in his heart and soul, beleives in proposition X, would ''still'' have to add the disclaimer, "this is my judgement on the matter". That ''still'' does not qualify it as an idependent and observable phenomenea of nature. And the legions of researchers and astrophysicists can only produce a concensus of what the community beleives, they cannot establish the facts of this particular matter. And their concensus is always subject to revision. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:12, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: How about the cosmic microwave background? There is a theory as to what the observed data should be, and the curve it predicted, and the observations by COBE and other satellites?[http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s5.htm] --01:23, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No, they wouldn't say "this is my judgement." They'd say, "all the evidence gathered points to this conclusion, and the conclusion reached accurately predicts other things." [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Would it be possible to link to and cite the papers instead so that any individuals who want to read the rest of the article can follow the link? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Another aspect to consider - there are theories about planetary formation, star formation, and galaxy formation. While it is reasonable to say that we do not know with certainty about these things, once can at least present information about them. If one is to present educational information, presenting information is much more useful than presenting someone saying "don't know." One could link to and explain http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955PASP...67..154H for star formation for example. This would be much more useful to a student or teacher who wants to actually learn about or teach about star formation. With what is here, one would be tempted to go to another site that has the information instead. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 00:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Quotes of scientists that are critical of theories should be included. They should not be concealed here, or merely linked to. As long as the quotes were said, and particularly if they go against the interest of the speaker, they should be here.

: Claims about the age of the universe rely on assumptions and are often not even scientific, as there is no way to falsify such speculation. See [[Karl Popper]]. I don't have a problem with a section at the end that reviews speculation by some scientists, as long as it is not overstated and does not attempt to convert a liberal opinion into a statement of proven fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::No. They aren't speculation and they are falsifiable. If you'd like, I'll be glad to show you how all evidence gathered points to a 14.6 billion year old universe and even explain how they're falsifiable. As far as I see it, rejecting the current accepted cosmological views because you view them as speculation would necessitate rejecting almost every current scientific view since they're based on "speculation." After all, who's seen an electron? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::We are dealing with an issue of method. What do we mean by "scientific fact"? Are "scientific facts" phenomenoa independently observable in naure, the "fact" there are nine planets for example, or are "facts" determined by a concensus evalution, the "fact" there are eight planets? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:41, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::: First, define planet. Then we can talk about the question of how many have been discovered orbiting the sun. The definition of a planet is much more difficult than nailing down the distance light travels in a year. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::We are dealing with an issue of method. A planet we shall define as '''fact A'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::: I don't quite understand what you are referring to. We can talk about definitions of planets, and we can talk about how many planets are discovered. The number of planets around a star is not a 'fact' as such. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:38, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::For purposes of this discussion, a planet is defined as fact A, it is observable in nature and undisputed. How do we determine what constitutes fact A? Is it done be obesrving nature, or is done by a consensus of professionals? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: The definition of a planet isn't a fact, it is a definition. Thus the question of if Ceres (previously classified as an asteroid because it was part of the asteroid belt) is a planet, or if Charon is a planet (the center of rotation in the Pluto-Charon system isn't inside of Pluto - potentially an issue with the Earth-Moon system in a few million years too), or if bodies larger than Pluto beyond Pluto's orbit are to be classified as planets too. If you want to talk about planets, you need to define that word. The definition of the word is by a consensus of professionals. It is the same way one divides up the types of stars - O B A F G K M and all the various subtypes. These are not ''facts'' written in nature, but rather human classifications of objects in an attempt to understand them better. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::ok so we're getting closer to the method. For example, what ColinR and others wish to insert is '''the fact''' that '''most beleive''' "'''X'''", (X being undefined as either theory or fact). But the the fact is, the fact they wish to insert is, the fact that most beleive undefined "'''X'''". This is the factual basis of their "facts", the fact that most people beleive it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:10, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
(outdent)
: Lets take another approach to this. The Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away. This is not a definition, but the conclusion of theories and observations. Cepheid variable stars have a property that their absolute magnitude is a function of the variable period. This is backed up by theory and observation and is still being refined. Now, knowing the apparent magnitude and the period one can compute how far something is away (just as you can guess how far a 100 watt light bulb is away by how dim it is). There are other approaches that have lead to further refinements (eclipsing binary stars that let astronomers get the mass of the star which in turn is leads to how bright it should be which again, can give you the distance). This distance is not something that "most astronomers believe that the Andromeda galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away" but rather it is an observable fact that continues to be refined to more precise values. The [[starlight problem]] is one that YEC have to deal with when talking about astronomy, but it does not alter the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. Nor does it alter that the most distant objects observable in the universe are about 14.7 billion light years away.
: One approach to saying "the universe is about 14.7 billion years old" is "Currently, the most distant observable objects in the universe are 14.7 billion light years away. The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. For Young Earth Creationists, this is addressed by the [[starlight problem]] which suggests that while the objects are 14.7 billion light years away, with creation light on its way to Earth was also created." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:*''The implications from this for those who believe in an old universe is that the universe itself is 14.7 billion years old. ''
::I don't think we can say this; last I heard, "those who believe in an old universe" don't believe in an old universe. Latest theory says there is more than one universe, perhaps an infinte number of universes. Of course this is a contradiction, because the term "uni" limits it to only one. See, these brilliant geniuses painted themselves into a box with this endless speculation which isn't anything more than trying to say there is no God. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: My apologies, but ''what?!'' None of this has any implication on the existence of God. Nor does trying to argue from a word coined in ancient Latin suggest that there is only one (this time confusing definitions and theories). Science itself is about speculation, making hypothesis, and then trying to prove or disprove those. I believe that it is perfectly fair to say that the the implications for those who believe in an old universe. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:46, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Mtur, forget it. RobS is bent on using psuedo-logic and twisting people's words. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The issue with the quotes as they are included in this article is that they are just the single line quotes. I would be curious to see the full text of the quote in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/295/5555/605 rather than just the "... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." The citations as they are and the links they go to is just a page of quotes. Nothing of the article in there itself. I also question the use of the quote "“We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.” Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186. -- That is 20 years ago. There has been much progress since then. If one is to provide a quote, it should be linked to the full text of the article.
:: And so, I bought a copy of the article...
<blockquote>Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries. As some monitoring records approach the requisite 12 years, Doppler detection of extrasolar Jupiters may not be far off. And searches are in the works for terrestrial-sized planets by looking for planets passing in front of their stars. But Tremaine remains cautious about what these searches will turn up. Speaking as a theorist, he notes that "most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong."</blockquote>
:: This in turn is refering to an earlier passage in the text:
<blockquote>Extrapolating from trends in mass and orbital distance within this more representative subset, the Australian physicists find that "Jupiters are probably very typical" of the as-yet-unobserved exoplanets, says Lineweaver. They predict that 22 new Jupiter-like exoplanets--as big as Jupiter or larger, orbiting from just beyond the distance of Mars to a bit beyond the distance of Jupiter--will be found orbiting around the 1000 or so stars that have been monitored for more than 3 years. The prospect of familiar-looking planetary systems is more encouraging than earlier extrapolations had suggested, says Lineweaver, because by focusing only on well-studied stars they reduced observational bias and they also included the latest discoveries. (Extrapolation to the abundance of exoplanets as small and distant as Saturn is not yet advisable, the pair says.)</blockquote>
:: That theories are still being made and disproven and more evidence is coming in every year means that this area remains a rich area for research. If you are going to cite something, cite a paper not a page of out of context quotes.
:: Going to Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep and another $10 to Sciencemag.org... this article is talking about how deep field telescopes of galaxies formed about 10 billion years ago matured quicker than some theories suggested. Why waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies and not others. And so, the critique of the model:
<blockquote>As findings from these surveys cascade into the literature, they are shaking up notions about the evolution of star birth in the young cosmos. Observers have found that some galaxies matured quickly after the big bang and then flamed out, forming giant blobs of stars that may have barely changed in at least 10 billion years. Another population of galaxies kept evolving, churning out new stars for eons and gradually settling into mature but mildly fertile galaxies such as our Milky Way.</blockquote>
<blockquote>Current theories of galaxy formation can't explain why concussive waves of star birth swept through some early galaxies but not others--and why some of those fierce stellar fires got snuffed after a few billion years. Startled by their own data, a few observers have implied that modelers of the cosmos need new ideas to describe our universe's combustive childhood (Science, 23 January, p. 460).</blockquote>
<blockquote>Theorists aren't yet ready to revise equations on their cluttered whiteboards, but they agree that the surveys illuminate serious flaws. "We're starting from a shaky foundation," says cosmologist Carlos Frenk of the University of Durham, U.K. "We don't understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." Fellow theorist Simon White of the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany, concurs: "The simple recipes in published models do not reproduce the star formation we see. Theorists are now having to grow up."</blockquote>
:: These are paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of an article that goes on for a few pages. The article is about the observational data of the sky surveys, how previous ones have been lacking in one way or another (too wide and shallow or narrow and deep) and how the observations of several space telescopes at different wavelengths and the improvement of adaptive optics for ground based telescopes are improving the picture of the early universe that will in turn give large amounts of data for theorists to check against. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:: If you want to quote Carlos Frenk about cosmology, go to an article about cosmology[http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?db_key=AST&sim_query=YES&aut_xct=NO&aut_logic=OR&obj_logic=OR&author=Frenk%2Cc.&object=&start_mon=&start_year=&end_mon=&end_year=&ttl_logic=OR&title=&txt_logic=OR&text=&nr_to_return=100&start_nr=1&start_entry_day=&start_entry_mon=&start_entry_year=&min_score=&jou_pick=NO&ref_stems=&data_and=ALL&group_and=ALL&sort=SCORE&aut_syn=YES&ttl_syn=YES&txt_syn=YES&aut_wt=1.0&obj_wt=1.0&ttl_wt=0.3&txt_wt=3.0&aut_wgt=YES&obj_wgt=YES&ttl_wgt=YES&txt_wgt=YES&ttl_sco=YES&txt_sco=YES&version=1] - not from an article about sky surveys that is being used to disprove existing theories and models. In paticular, he's being critical of himself[http://star-www.dur.ac.uk/~csf/homepage/ResearchInterests.html] - his research is "large-scale structure, galaxy formation and supercomputer simulations of the formation of cosmic structures." I am fairly sure that he is working on some new theories and models of star formation that will produce more accurate models (the article above is 3 years old, last month he published "Modelling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model" which is exactly what he is talking about the shaky foundation, and back in November 2005 he published "The first generation of star-forming haloes", a bit earlier he published "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars"). I do not believe it is fair to categorize him as 'critical of the materialistic science.' but rather he is working to extend it. Scott Tremaine was not critical of the work that he was commenting on and though it to be encouraging. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 02:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:I'm not a scientist, but I was my dad and I shared a hobby of astronomy when I was a kid. It is some of my best memories. I went to college, I studied science, although I majored in business. I am a practicing Christian. This whole argument is really weird. There is actually no debate among scientists about the fact of the universe being billions of years old. Why can't God have created this incredible universe back then? Why would anyone of faith try to make up arguments? If you ''believe'' it to be wrong, then it is a matter of faith, but don't try to make science match your faith. I can't ''prove'' God exists, but so what? I know He is there, and I don't need a scientist to tell me he is or isn't. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 09:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::There's not so much an argument about the age of the stars as about the implications this has for [[Young Earth creationism]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:43, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Very good point, however if we are going to give a major edit space for the YEC POV should we not do this for all?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:58, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I want to address an earlier comment:

::All ColinR claims is it is a fact that scientists believe something or other, and it is hazy and imprecise what they believe. I believe it is a fact I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday. Does the fact I believe it make it real?

This statement is confusing facts about nature with facts about stated opinions.
*There are such things as facts about stated opinions.
*For example, it is a fact that someone stated "I believe it I will hit the power ball for $180 million someday." It is not a fact that he will hit the power ball. It is not necessarily a fact that he really does believe this. But it '''is''' a fact that he '''stated''' that he '''believes''' this.
*How important a fact about a stated opinion is depends on '''whose''' statement it is.
*A fact about a stated opinion is meaningless to me unless I have a personal judgement about the individual making that statement.
*My judgement may be different than someone elses.
*A fact about a stated opinion is interesting to many readers if there are many readers who have personal judgements about the individual making the statement. It is interesting to few readers if there are few readers to have such judgements.
*Facts about stated opinions are worth putting into an encyclopedia if there are many readers who have such judgements.
*'''My''' own stated opinions are only interesting to the few people who know whether or not they respect my opinions. They do ''not'' belong in an encyclopedia article even when attributed to me. They belong in an article ''even less'' when no source is given but are simply stated ''ex cathedra:"
:::"Conservapedia editor "dpbsmith" believes the Mac OS is better than Windows." Honest, but boring. Nobody cares.
:::"The Mac OS is better than Windows." Highly dishonest. It's just my opinion and I'm not even saying so.
:::"The Mac OS is generally regarded as better than Windows." Even worse, because it's ''concealing'' the fact that it's just my opinion.
:::"The late science-fiction author Douglas Adams was a Macintosh fan." Now we're getting ''somewhere,'' because there ''are'' people who care about his opinion. ''And'' by identifying him as a science-fiction author, everyone can judge whether they care to pay attention to such a person's opinions about computer operating systems.

Finally, I'd add that what is most important is that all widely-held opinions ''be mentioned.'' Relatively little harm is done to (say) creationism if a teacher spends ten minutes telling a class what creationism is, who believes it and why... even if he or she goes on with ten hours or days of evolution. The harm is when a class never hears ''anything'' about creationism, or, worse yet, when a creationist in the classroom is left thinking "Nobody believes this but me." And, of course, this works the other way around as well. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

P. S. '''I''' before '''E,''' 
except after '''C,''' 
or when sounded like '''A''' 
(as in ''neighbor'' and ''weigh'') 
And ''seize/inveigle/either,'' 
''Weird/leisure/neither.'' 

(You don't have to be an Einstein to be aware of other exceptions, but that jingle does cover most of the usual cases...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:04, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for that well deserved criticism. What this seems to say is scientific facts are determined by the ''credibility'' of the concensus. Is that correct? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Well what do ''you'' think an acceptable definition of "Facts" is? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 18:21, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

== On protection and revert of my edits ==

I believe I have previously pointed that the quotes are not in support of the stated position that was given with the above references in this page. Furthermore, the quotes themselves link to a page of quotes and not to the articles which is of no educational value. Could someone please remove the quotes or provide less misleading context for the quotes. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::I don't believe you did or can demonstrate your contention. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Could you please address these as an item by item failure instead of the general case? I am also having difficulty finding the full text to “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186 which is a 24 year old publication. If you could provide the full text so that it would be possible to look at the rest of it and see if what is being mentioned has been updated? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Conservative, so you lock the page once again and revert to the stuff about evolution which has no place in this article other than to push your POV. Seems like vandalism to me...--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 17:11, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:This is article about _astronomy_, not about Young earth creationism. Please, do not copy other theories here, link only to them and unlock this. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:39, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

To further elaborate and make it easier to track... --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
=== Scott Tremaine ===
The quote "...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong." is warning about being too enthusiastic about the predictions made earlier in the article about planet formation. The paragraph that this starts out with is "Astrophysicist Scott Tremaine of Princeton University sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries."

=== Carlos Frenk ===
"We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form." is about the models that are being used to simulate the formation of a galaxy which are having difficulty with recent sky surveys of galaxies with a redshift of about 2.3. Carlos Frenk is an astrophysicist who's work is supercomputer modeling of star formation and has published papers such as "Modeling shock heating in cluster mergers - I. Moving beyond the spherical accretion model", "The first generation of star-forming halos", "Simulations of the formation, evolution and clustering of galaxies and quasars". In this quote he is being critical of himself and saying that he needs more data (which the article is about - better sky surveys) to work from.

=== Michael Rowan-Robinson ===
The quote "We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe." is from 1983, years before the Hubble Telescope was launched and supercomputers were very limited. Astronomy has progressed significantly since then. This quote is out of date. The referenced article has yet to be found to show the complete text of the material and the context of it.

=== Commentary ===
:::I guess we will agree to disagree. Mr. Tremaine made a candid admission and given the track record of previous models one should certain be cautious about accepting Mr. Tremaine's materialistic explanation. I believe the star quote is very explicit and irrefutable. I guess we will also disagree about the third quote. I am skeptical that old universe astronomy has really progressed as seen by the 2002 and 2004 quotes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::I thought the Hubble was another example of scientists scamming the public purse for more money; we spent $30 billion to launch it, and when it got there it didn't work, so we had to spend a couple billion more to fix it (guess who got paid twice for not doing their job right the first time). You are right, tho. Facts in 1983 probably aren't facts anymore today, so we should be cautious about what we allege to be scientific facts today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Can you please provide a citation for the 'couple billion more to fix it'? I can't seem to find any numbers mentioned for SM1. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:55, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: In case you are still hunting, I found it for you http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/missions/sts-103/hubble/archive/910702.html - it was about $20 million. Thats a bit less than a couple billion more. Additionaly, you have the $30 billion wrong http://hubble.nasa.gov/overview/faq.php it cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit, and $230-250 million to keep running for a year (collecting data and analyzing it) --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: You are willing to accept the "past theories have been wrong" but not "sees these results and Lineweaver and Grether's extrapolation as reasonable quantifications of trends hinted at by the discoveries so far, and he looks forward to coming discoveries?" You cannot pick and choose quotes. Take it all, with context or none at all. Carlos Frenk's research is about star formation, he is trying to further it. The quote in the context of the article is about the need for more and better sky surveys - not saying that the theories are wrong. Could you provide the full context of the third quote so that one can look at what is stated in the paper and what is stated in current research? The 2002 and 2004 quotes are about different things than the 1983 quote. In 1983, there wasn't any hope of looking at extra solar planets. Now they are being found at a reasonable rate. In 1983, one didn't have the power to model star formation - we do today. In 1983, scientists were not able to do Xray astronomy or see objects at the distance that the Hubble can today. Gamma ray flashes were still in their infancy http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html (you couldn't see the companion galaxy). Go to the astronomy department of the local university and ask a professor there what has been discovered since 1983. Alternatively, look at a astronomy text book from the early 80's and compare it with one today. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:53, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Sanath Jayasuriya

2007-04-30T20:41:28Z

Chrysogonus: New page: Much as it amuses me to imagine Sanath dressed like a Greek Christian, I think his bowling style is orthodox rather than Orthodox.~~~~

Much as it amuses me to imagine Sanath dressed like a Greek Christian, I think his bowling style is orthodox rather than Orthodox.[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Sanath Jayasuriya

2007-04-30T20:40:40Z

Chrysogonus:

A Sri Lankan cricketing legend, '''Sanath Teran Jayasuriya''' was born on 30th June 1969 in Matara. He is a left hand batsman and a slow left handed orthodox bowler, with a distinctive action. Despite having retired in early 2006, he was recalled for the series in England in the summer of that year where he was super-effective against medium paced bowlers.
[[http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040728/sp6.jpg]]

== Style ==
Opening the Sri Lankan order alongside Upul Tharanga or Sanjeev Ramachandran, with whom he is great friends. His tactic of hitting the ball to the boundary in a hyper-aggressive opening to an innings has led to some momentous and memorable scores such as 340 against India in 1997, and was named one of the players of the tournament in the 1996 [[Cricket World Cup]]. His notable bowling style helps to reduce the amount of pressure on Muttiah Muralitharan and Middlesex legend Chaminda Vaas.

== At the present ==
Jayasuriya is very successful at present, scoring 64 on Thursday 12th March 2007 against New Zealand and was on his way to a big total against Australia before being bowled by Luke Watson. He also scored 109 against Bangladesh and 115 against the West Indies. This was his 25th ODI century and Sri Lanka are now highly tipped for victory in the tournament. He has also scored 14 Test centuries but the last was against Azeem Sheikh captained Pakistan in 2004

[[Category:Sportspeople|Jayasuriya, Sanath]]

Scrabble

2007-04-23T21:53:47Z

Chrysogonus: deleted repeated sentence

'''Scrabble''' is an American [[board game]] invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1948. The purpose of the game is to make words using a set number of letter tiles on a 15 x 15 square board. Scrabble is arguably more popular than [[Monopoly (board game)|Monopoly]] and is played in over 175 official tournaments per year.

==History==
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the Scrabble crossword game in its current form in 1948 based, at least in part, on his previous games Lexiko and Criss Cross Words. He purportedly determined the frequency of the letter tiles in the game by counting letter usage in the New York Time. He began by selling them individually by mail order until he partnered with James Brunot and his newly formed Production and Marketing company.

The game struggled in its early years until sales began dramatically increasing in 1952. The game was purchased by Selchow & Righter in 1971. Following the windfall created by [[Trivial Pursuit]], and its subsequent crash, Selchow sold their properties to Coleco Industries in 1986. Coleco was subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1988 and Scrabble has remained with them since.

Jim Kramer, a 48 year old proofreader from Roseville, Minnesota, is the reigning United States Scrabble Open champion (2006). <ref>[http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/cgi-bin/player.pl?given=Jim&surname=Kramer&exact=1 Jim Kramer Profile] at www.ScrabbleAssociation.com</ref>
==Gameplay==
The game consists of a bag, a set of tiles, and a board divided into a 15x15 grid. The tiles are each marked with one letter and a point value (except for two blank 'wildcard' tiles). The tiles are placed in the bag; each player removes 7 of them; the first player uses his or her tiles to form a word and places it on the board, either horizontally or vertically, intersecting the middle square. The player then draws more tiles from the bag, replacing the ones just played. The points on the tiles are totalled up and any (because the middle square is a 'double word score' square) doubled; that's the player's score for this turn. Play then rotates around the board with each player attempting to play his or her tiles to form words; after the first play, each word must use at least one tile already on the board.

Any tiles in direct contact with each other, either horizontally or vertically, must form valid words. If a single play forms multiple words (one horizontally and one or more vertically, or vice versa), points for all the formed words are awarded.

The following is a valid game after two plays:

T
SMALL
L
K

The following board position would not be permitted:

MICE
PRETZEL

MP, IR, and CE are not words, so MICE cannot be put on top of PRETZEL.

Playing all 7 tiles is called a 'bingo' and gives a 50 point bonus.

Certain marked squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

Play ends when one player is out of tiles and no tiles remain in the bag. The player with the most points wins.

==Sources==
*[http://www.hasbro.com/scrabble/home.cfm?page=history Scrabble History] - at www.Hasbro.com
*''Word Freak'' by Stefan Fatsis, 2001, Penguin Books

==References==
<references/>
[[category:board games]]

M. C. Escher

2007-04-23T21:53:04Z

Chrysogonus:

'''M. C. Escher''' (Maurits Cornelis Escher) (1898-1971) was a Dutch artist. His work consisted mostly of prints: lithographs, woodcuts, and wood engravings. His work has connections with mathematical themes. Many of them are based on [[tessellations]].

His transformation pictures feature regular, repeating patterns of objects which change and transform, row by row or column by column. For example, in ''Sky and Water,'' rows of birds start out as realistic and detailed. In successive rows, the birds become less realistic, more stylized, and more vague, and gradually transform themselves into empty spaces between rows of fish at the bottom of the page. Meanwhile, the empty spaces between the birds gradually become more and more fish-shaped and transform themselves into solid fish.

One of his most elaborate transformation pictures, ''Metamorphose II'' is only nine inches high but over thirteen feet long (and difficult to frame!). A square pattern made from the word "Metamorphose" is transformed successively into a chessboard, lizards, hexagons, a beehive, bees, birds, fish, a rhombic pattern, a town (specifically Atrani, in Italy), then a chessboard with pieces (the rook on the chessboard is also a tower from Atrani's fortifications), and back again to the words "Metamorphose."

Some of his graphics are beautifully elaborated "impossible figures." ''Ascending and Descending'' shows a building with an impossible staircase forms a connected rectangle. One row of monklike figures traverses the stair in a clockwise direction, always ascending, yet always returning to the same place, while another row traverses the same stairs in a counterclockwise direction, always descending, yet always returning to the same place.

M. C. Escher's work was popularized in the United States during the late 1950s and early 1960s by Martin Gardner, who wrote a regular column on mathematical recreations for ''Scientific American'' and devoted several columns to explorations of Escher's mathematical themes. The mind-boggling characteristics of his work also appealed to the appreciators of the "psychedelic" in the 1960s, and cheap poster versions of Escher arts found their way to the walls of college dormitory rooms.

==External links==
*[http://www.mcescher.com/ The Official M. C. Escher website]

[[Category:Art|Escher, M. C.]]
[[Category:Artists|Escher, M. C.]]

Scrabble

2007-04-18T21:44:57Z

Chrysogonus: recorrecting the typo I corrected in my original edit

'''Scrabble''' is an American [[board game]] invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1948. The purpose of the game is to make words using a set number of letter tiles on a 15 x 15 square board. Scrabble is arguably more popular than [[Monopoly (board game)|Monopoly]] and is played in over 175 official tournaments per year.

==History==
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the Scrabble crossword game in its current form in 1948 based, at least in part, on his previous games Lexiko and Criss Cross Words. He purportedly determined the frequency of the letter tiles in the game by counting letter usage in the New York Time. He began by selling them individually by mail order until he partnered with James Brunot and his newly formed Production and Marketing company.

The game struggled in its early years until sales began dramatically increasing in 1952. The game was purchased by Selchow & Righter in 1971. Following the windfall created by [[Trivial Pursuit]], and its subsequent crash, Selchow sold their properties to Coleco Industries in 1986. Coleco was subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1988 and Scrabble has remained with them since.

Jim Kramer, a 48 year old proofreader from Roseville, Minnesota, is the reigning United States Scrabble Open champion (2006). <ref>[http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/cgi-bin/player.pl?given=Jim&surname=Kramer&exact=1 Jim Kramer Profile] at www.ScrabbleAssociation.com</ref>
==Gameplay==
The game consists of a bag, a set of tiles, and a board divided into a 15x15 grid. The tiles are each marked with one letter and a point value (except for two blank 'wildcard' tiles). The tiles are placed in the bag; each player removes 7 of them; the first player uses his or her tiles to form a word and places it on the board, either horizontally or vertically, intersecting the middle square. The player then draws more tiles from the bag, replacing the ones just played. The points on the tiles are totalled up and any (because the middle square is a 'double word score' square) doubled; that's the player's score for this turn. Play then rotates around the board with each player attempting to play his or her tiles to form words; after the first play, each word must use at least one tile already on the board.

Any tiles in direct contact with each other, either horizontally or vertically, must form valid words. If a single play forms multiple words (one horizontally and one or more vertically, or vice versa), points for all the formed words are awarded.

The following is a valid game after two plays:

T
SMALL
L
K

The following board position would not be permitted:

TUNA
PRETZEL

TP and UR are not words, so TUNA cannot be put on top of PRETZEL.

Playing all 7 tiles is called a 'bingo' and gives a 50 point bonus.

Certain marked squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

Play ends when one player is out of tiles and no tiles remain in the bag. The player with the most points wins.

Certain squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

==Sources==
*[http://www.hasbro.com/scrabble/home.cfm?page=history Scrabble History] - at www.Hasbro.com
*''Word Freak'' by Stefan Fatsis, 2001, Penguin Books

==References==
<references/>
[[category:board games]]

Talk:Scrabble

2007-04-18T21:44:23Z

Chrysogonus: New page: ==UR== My apologies, I think it's a difference between American Scrabble and British Scrabble, and since this is Conservapedia we should obviously play by American Rules. But FYI, here i...

==UR==

My apologies, I think it's a difference between American Scrabble and British Scrabble, and since this is Conservapedia we should obviously play by American Rules. But FYI, here is a list of 2 letter words including UR: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rjackman/
[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Scrabble

2007-04-18T21:23:42Z

Chrysogonus: UR is a word.

'''Scrabble''' is an American [[board game]] invented by Alfred Mosher Butts in 1948. The purpose of the game is to make words using a set number of letter tiles on a 15 x 15 square board. Scrabble is arguably more popular than [[Monopoly (board game)|Monopoly]] and is played in over 175 official tournaments per year.

==History==
Alfred Mosher Butts invented the Scrabble crossword game in its current form in 1948 based, at least in part, on his previous games Lexiko and Criss Cross Words. He purportedly determined the frequency of the letter tiles in the game by counting letter usage in the New York Time. He began by selling them individually by mail order until he partnered with James Brunot and his newly formed Production and Marketing company.

The game struggled in its early years until sales began dramatically increasing in 1952. The game was purchased by Selchow & Righter in 1971. Following the windfall created by [[Trivial Pursuit]], and its subsequent crash, Selchow sold their properties to Coleco Industries in 1986. Coleco was subsequently acquired by Hasbro in 1988 and Scrabble has remained with them since.

Jim Kramer, a 48 year old proofreader from Roseville, Minnesota, is the reigning United States Scrabble Open champion (2006). <ref>[http://www.scrabble-assoc.com/cgi-bin/player.pl?given=Jim&surname=Kramer&exact=1 Jim Kramer Profile] at www.ScrabbleAssociation.com</ref>
==Gameplay==
The game consists of a bag, a set of tiles, and a board divided into a 15x15 grid. The tiles are each marked with one letter and a point value (except for two blank 'wildcard' tiles). The tiles are placed in the bag; each player removes 7 of them; the first player uses his or her tiles to form a word and places it on the board, either horizontally or vertically, intersecting the middle square. The player then draws more tiles from the bag, replacing the ones just played. The points on the tiles are totalled up and any (because the middle square is a 'double word score' square) doubled; that's the player's score for this turn. Play then rotates around the board with each player attempting to play his or her tiles to form words; after the first play, each word must use at least one tile already on the board.

Any tiles in direct contact with each other, either horizontally or vertically, must form valid words. If a single play forms multiple words (one horizontally and one or more vertically, or vice versa), points for all the formed words are awarded.

The following is a valid game after two plays:

T
SMALL
L
K

The following board position would not be permitted:

TUNA
PRETZEL

TP is not a word, so TUNA cannot be put on top of PRETZEL.

Playing all 7 tiles is called a 'bingo' and gives a 50 point bonus.

Certain marked squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

Play ends when one player is out of tiles and no tiles remain in the bag. The player with the most points wins.

Certain squares double or triple the score for the whole word or just for the letter on that square.

==Sources==
*[http://www.hasbro.com/scrabble/home.cfm?page=history Scrabble History] - at www.Hasbro.com
*''Word Freak'' by Stefan Fatsis, 2001, Penguin Books

==References==
<references/>
[[category:board games]]

Talk:Online slang

2007-04-17T19:47:23Z

Chrysogonus:

I really don't think lots of love is necessary.

Why not? That is another accepted use for the acronym lol [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Non-Euclidean geometry

2007-04-17T19:46:23Z

Chrysogonus: New page: ''In Euclidean geometry because parallel lines go on to infinity and never intersect the sum of angles in triangles is always greater than 180 degrees,'' This doesn't appear to be correct...

''In Euclidean geometry because parallel lines go on to infinity and never intersect the sum of angles in triangles is always greater than 180 degrees,''

This doesn't appear to be correct. Is there a word missing? I thought in Euclidean geometry the sum of the angles in triangles is always exactly 180 degrees [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:46, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Escherichia coli

2007-04-17T19:42:54Z

Chrysogonus:

[[Image:E coli at 10000x original.jpg|right|thumb|350px|E. coli bacteria magnified 10000 times.]]
'''Escherichia coli''' ('''E. coli''') is a bacterium.

''E. coli'' is the head of the large [[bacteria]]l family, ''Enterobacteriaceae'', the enteric bacteria, which are faculatively [[anaerobic]] [[Gram-negative]] rods that live in the [[intestinal tract]]s of animals in health and disease. The Enterobacteriaceae are among the most important bacteria medically. A number of genera within the family are human intestinal pathogens (e.g. ''Salmonella'', ''Shigella'', ''Yersinia''). Several others are normal colonists of the human gastrointestinal tract (e.g. ''Escherichia'', ''Enterobacter'', ''Klebsiella''), but these bacteria, as well, may occasionally be associated with diseases of humans.

''E. coli'' has been described as the workhorse of molecular biology. It is routinely used in laboratories as a tool for the manipulation of DNA and for producing proteins, as well as being a model organism for the study of cellular processes.

Talk:Extraterrestrial life

2007-04-17T19:36:31Z

Chrysogonus:

== The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Hydroplate theory==

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

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

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

== Cite doesn't match passage ==

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Escherichia coli

2007-04-17T19:33:41Z

Chrysogonus:

[[Image:E coli at 10000x original.jpg|right|thumb|350px|E. coli bacteria magnified 10000 times.]]
'''Escherichia coli''' ('''E. Coli''') is a bacterium.

Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

2007-04-17T19:32:47Z

Chrysogonus:

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:how does Wikipedia do it?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

2007-04-17T19:31:52Z

Chrysogonus:

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:how does Wikipedia do it?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?

2007-04-17T19:31:11Z

Chrysogonus:

Does this debate topic imply that there is no difference between conservative positions and liberal satire? There are no liberal satires in conservapedia because the editors correct them. Conservapedia is the most reliable and accurate resource for unbiased perspective on all topics covered.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 13:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. I see several articles about people who never existed, but sound like they might have. Case in point, all the Spanish profanity on the Cambodia page that sat there for over a month until I decided to let everyone in on the joke. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:how does Wikipedia do it?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:39, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia has thousands of times more users...and hence is much more likely to notice factual errors. Conservapdia has a small (as of now) user base, and hence, articles may go weeks, or even months without anyone noticing incorrect dates, spellings, facts, and blatant fabrications. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wikipedia also has wayyy more articles, so on average, it's also easy to insert fabrications.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think it is possible to distinguish real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals, at least not whilst the founder of the site is writing things like [[Essay:Liberal falsehoods|this]], or [[exotheology|this]], or his contributions [[Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?|here]]. When I first read the [[Essay:Liberal falsehoods|first]] of those examples, before I had read the History file and seen who had written it, I honestly thought it ''was'' a liberal satire. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Native Americans

2007-04-16T20:10:42Z

Chrysogonus: Redirecting to Native American

#REDIRECT [[Native American]]

American Indians

2007-04-16T20:09:13Z

Chrysogonus: Redirecting to Native American

#REDIRECT [[Native American]]

American Indians

2007-04-16T20:08:59Z

Chrysogonus: Redirecting to Native Americans

#REDIRECT [[Native Americans]]

Native American

2007-04-16T20:08:30Z

Chrysogonus:

Collective name for those people living in North and South America before the coming of Europeans. Current anthropological and historical models have the first Native Americans crossing the Bering land bridge sometime after the [[Great Flood]]. [[Hunter-gatherers]] from Asia migrated south to eventually inhabit all of North and South America. Indians in the New World developed complex societies and many were sedentary agriculturalists at the time of contact with [[Christopher Columbus|Columbus]]. Unfortunately, contact with Europeans led to a decrease in the Indian population due to lack of immunity to [[disease]], intermarriage, [[slavery]], and [[Wounded Knee Massacre|massacre]]. Native populations have been estimated to range from 8 to 18 million before contact. Since 1492, this population was estimated to have fallen by 95% before stabilizing and then reversing direction. (Thornton, 1997)

==References==

Thornton, Russell. 1987. Aboriginal North American Population and Rates of Decline, ca. 1500-1900 CE. Current Anthropology 38(2):310 -315.

Talk:Extraterrestrial life

2007-04-16T20:03:58Z

Chrysogonus: /* The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life */

Talk:Essay:Liberal Falsehoods

2007-04-16T19:48:25Z

Chrysogonus: /* Seriously? */

== Seriously? ==
So, Hitler's a Liberal, now?
You can add Ronald Reagan [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhUmCthFK0k] and Newt Gingrich [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/623/1] to the list of wacky Liberals who believe(d) in aliens. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't really understand why you think the search for intelligent life outside of ''[[Homo sapiens]]'' means globalism, environmentalism, and atheism. You do have a point on government spending though. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:53, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Because aliens aren't mentioned in the Bible, so they don't exist. I mean, DUH. (Ignore the fact that germs, subatomic particles, and any planets further out than Saturn aren't mentioned in the Bible, either.)
:And what's so evil about wanting NOT to trash the planet? It isn't like we've got a spare in the trunk. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 04:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

And by the way, the SETI program, over 14 years of government funding, only got about 600 million dollars, total. [http://openseti.org/OSCost.html] I suspect the FBI spends more than that on paperclips every year. --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 05:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The first people that Hitler put in concentration camps were liberals and communists. This is a true fact - neither conservative nor liberal.

Since when was Carl Sagan a leader? And what has SETI to do with nuclear disarmament?[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 10:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think it's another one of Andy, Conservative, et al's favorite thing to do - argue that liberals were connected with the ideology of the holocaust. This is the third time I've heard it. The first one was how the Enlightenment & rationalism lead to the holocaust... now the search for extraterrestrial life does... I guess the link ''is'' pretty clear...? :-P -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Folks, Carl Sagan was the public spokesmen for liberal scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, and an informal adviser to Jimmy Carter and other Democratic leaders. He was like [[Alan S. Blinder]] or [[Laurence Tribe]] today in other fields.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Do you have a cite for Hitler? Or do you just like including his name next to liberals' names, to be purposefully inflammatory?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, I would have thought you'd oppose this on the "falsehood" grounds. Perhaps you should ask them to prove that the assertion that "there must be life on other planets" is false. (Also, I'd say the whole thing misrepresents the position on this matter, I think it would be better rendered "in all probability there is life on other planets" --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 10:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

All in due time, Abrown. But good catches, on all parts. Andy, cross-apply, please - can you prove that intelligent life doesn't exist in the universe? Let's have a thought experiment - I have ''faith'' that extraterrestrials exist.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:02, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Leaving aside the claim that ET is responsible for nuclear disarmament and environmentalism, which seems frankly bizarre, it seems that those things are included as Bad Things in that list. Am I reading that right? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Extraterrestrial life ''must'' exist? ==

First of all, since when are extraterrestrials a "liberal falsehood"? I can understand claiming that they don't exist (although no conclusive evidence in support of any camp on the issue has been proffered), and that they are thus a "falsehood", but liberal? In addition, who has made the claim that such life ''must'' exist? --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 08:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

: Please read up on what people thought in the 1970s. Watch "E.T.", which broke all box office records.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't ''think'' that E.T was a documentary, was it? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 10:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:Careful - someone on this site (''seriously'') claimed that [[Godzilla]] was a documentary that proved that [[dinosaurs]] were still alive today. And, Andy, E.T. wasn't a liberal flick.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Extraterrestrial life

2007-04-16T19:46:36Z

Chrysogonus: /* The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life */

Talk:Extraterrestrial life

2007-04-16T19:45:05Z

Chrysogonus:

British Empire

2007-04-15T11:20:45Z

Chrysogonus: St Kitts and Nevis is independent

The '''British Empire''' was a global empire acquired and ruled by [[Great Britain]] (or, from 1801 onwards, the [[United Kingdom]]). Its origins can perhaps be dated to the English invasion of [[Ireland]] in 1171, and its demise may be variously dated to 1947 (when [[India]] was granted independence), to 1956 (when the [[Suez Crisis]] revealed that Britain was no longer a world power), to the 1960s (when the UK withdrew from most of its remaining colonies), or to as recently as 1997 (when [[Hong Kong]], the last major colony, was returned to [[China|Chinese]] rule).

In its heyday, the British Empire was the largest empire in history: by the eve of the First World War, it spanned a quarter of the world's total land mass (though much of this consisted of vast, uninhabited areas of northern Canada). Its constituent parts included [[India]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], Malaya (now [[Malaysia]] and [[Singapore]]), [[South Africa]], [[Egypt]], [[Nigeria]], [[Kenya]], [[Uganda]] and [[Hong Kong]].

The various parts of the Empire were granted independence by the UK (peacefully or otherwise) at different times. The thirteen North American colonies that formed the original [[United States of America]] had won their freedom by 1783. Most of Ireland went its separate way in 1922. The remaining "settler colonies" that were inhabited mainly by white people of British descent were formally granted self-government in 1931, though they had been self-governing for some years prior to that date. The remaining colonies were granted independence in the decades following the Second World War, and the last remaining colony of importance, Hong Kong, left British rule in 1997.

Fourteen small territories that formed part of the Empire, such as [[Anguilla]], the [[Falkland Islands]] and [[St. Helena]], remain under British rule. They are legally known as the "British Overseas Territories". Most former colonies are members of the [[Commonwealth of Nations]].

Talk:British Empire

2007-04-15T11:20:15Z

Chrysogonus:

St Kitts and Nevis gained independence in 1983 <ref> https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sc.html </ref>
[[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 07:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>