Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Etaroced

2007-05-16T05:07:22Z

ColinR:

Please fix any problems you see with [[talk.orgins]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:41, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:I restored your deleted text at [[Pseudogene]] to [[User:Mtur/Pseudogene]]. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 00:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, see ya later (I expect). [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Oh, I am always around in one form or another :). Its sockpuppets all the way down. :) [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

You said you had sent an email, I did not receive one from you. Try emailing me via [[Special:Emailuser/ColinR|here]]. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:07, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Neanderthal

2007-05-16T04:42:15Z

ColinR: removed large blank space "again."

[[Image:Neanderthals.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Modern reconstruction of Neanderthal men.]]
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 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 thought by some to be circa 80,000 to 30,000 years ago. Within western Europe the remains are associated with the middle [[Paleolithic]] [[Mousterian]] stone tool industries that disappeared with the arrival of [[Cro-magnon]] man (early modern Humans.)

Neanderthal Man is associated with the Middle Paleolithic Mousterian tool tradition <ref>Thieme, Hartmut "Lower to Midle Paleolithic Hunting Spears, and Lithic Tool Traditions." Archaeology 13, 2003</ref>.

==Anatomy==
[[Image:Human_Skeleton.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Neanderthal (left) and human (right) skeletons, showing both the similarities and the differences between the species.]]
A Neanderthal was a fully erect biped of stocky build, with a long low skull, prominent brow ridges and [[occiputs]], and a jutting face.
Neanderthals appear on average more muscular than humans and lacked a chin, they were social creatures living in small tribes. Neanderthals also possessed the skull features required for speech <ref>Neanderthal Myths Neanderthal, Channel 4 [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/]</ref>.
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 deficiency ([[rickets]]) or [[syphilis]].
Whether Neanderthals did interbreed, or if this was even possible remains unknown, so far the small amounts of Neanderthal [[DNA]] found do not suggest a recent genetic link between the species
<ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans British Archaeology [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>.

Homo neanderthalensis also had an average brainsize of 1,450 cc with a range from 1,125cc to 1,750cc. Average human brain size now is about 1,330cc.
Reseachers speculate Neanderthals needed this extra brain-mass to control there large muscle-mass.
Many Neanderthal fossils have been recovered showing massive amounts of wear on the teeth, which to many physical anthropologists suggests that the teeth were regularly used for gripping skins during stretching and working.
<ref>The Dawn of Human Culture Richard Klein, New York, John Wiley and Sons, 2002</ref>

==Society==
Evidence suggests Neanderthals may have been about as intelligent as an average human, they were social creatures living in small tribes, and that Neanderthal tribes interacted less with each other than human tribes did.

Neanderthals had the ability to make fire, for food they relied on hunting, and were probably strictly carnivorous <ref>Living like a Neanderthal Neanderthal, Channel 4 [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/N/neanderthal/]</ref>.
They never invented projectile weapons but relied on spears with limited range, even when facing large animals, their robust bodies enabled them to use this hunting style that was considered far too dangerous by humans.
A common hunting technique was to drive prey animals off a cliff, or corner them prey and finish them of with spears, much like today's [[Pygmees]] hunt elephants.

Evidence of care for the elderly and the sick has been found <ref>Neanderthals on Trial University of Minnesota, Duluth [http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/video/On_Trial.html]</ref>, they also used medicinal plants, made clothes out of animal skins and used stone tools. Neanderthals performed elaborate burying rituals.<ref>Early Man Andy Simmons [http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~simmonds/Sophy/early_man.htm]</ref>.
Interestingly archaeologists have never found Neanderthal cave drawings, although handcrafted art has been found <ref>Neanderthal 'face' found in Loire BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm]</ref>.

==History==
[[Image:Neanderthal_sites.gif|right|thumb|350px|The last refuges of the Neanderthals.]]
Neanderthal man is thought to have developed from ''Homo erectus'', though the widespread distribution of an [[evolution]]ary "intermediate form" hinders an attempt to resolve any single geographical locality as the place of development. The fate of Neanderthals is equally hard or determine, some scientists think they went extinct between 28,000 and 24,000 years ago
<ref>Neanderthals' 'last rock refuge' BBC News [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5343266.stm]</ref>, but they can't explain how or why: many theories have been presented, these are the most common ones:

- Climate changes. <ref> Climate Change Pushed Neanderthal Into Extinction In Iberian Peninsula GeneticArchaeology.com [http://www.geneticarchaeology.com/Research/Climate_Change_Pushed_Neanderthal_Into_Extinction_In_Iberian_Peninsula.asp]</ref>

- Competition with humans over resources. <ref>Did Use of Free Trade Cause Neanderthal Extinction? Newswise [http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/510666/]</ref>

- Their reliance on meat. <ref>Meaty appetites may have caused Neanderthal extinction Science & Spirit [http://www.science-spirit.org/archive_cm_detail.php?new_id=317]</ref>

- Assimilation into the larger human population. <ref>The assimilation model, modern human origins in Europe and the extinction of Neanderthals Fred H. Smith, Ivor Jankovic, Ivor Karavanic [http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/prap/the%20assimilation%20model.pdf]</ref>

- An interspecies "Zeroth World War". <ref>Odd man out: Neanderthals and modern humans British Archaeology [http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba51/ba51feat.html]</ref>

Some postulate it is likely a combination of at least some of these factors led to the extinction of the Neanderthals.

Neanderthal Man is not considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans by evolutionists.

==Creationist's views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young Earth Creationists]] do not believe Neanderthals were a now extinct prehistoric sentient species, but believe that Neanderthals were fully human <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/worthy-ancestors</ref>, based on these factors:

* The brain size of neanderthalensis meets or exceeds that of humans today.
* They had the ability to speak, like humans.
* The skeletons of humans and neanderthalensis are very similar in bone count and types. The size differences between the two can be seen today in humans.
* DNA evidence shows neanderthalensis very similar to humans <ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/468/]</ref>, evolutionists believe this proves a close relationship, creationists believe it proves Neanderthals were fullblooded humans.

Creationists believe that Neanderthals were a splinter-group of humanity who adapted to survive the [[Ice Age]] after the [[flood|Great flood]]. Neanderthal type traits were best suited for the harsh cold. Malnutrition and longer life spans could cause features similar to those seen in Neanderthal skeletons <ref>Neanderthals are still human [http://www.icr.org/article/468/]</ref>.

For these reasons creationists call neanderthals "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis", classifying them as a human subspecies.

[[Category:Primates]]
[[Category:Hominid]]

==References==
<references/>

Neanderthal

2007-05-16T04:38:58Z

ColinR: copy editing. removed large blank space.

Help:How to create a new article

2007-05-16T03:34:00Z

ColinR: /* Categories */

Before creating a new article first do a check using the search feature at Conservapedia. You can also look at the [[Conservapedia:Category tag|category tags]] for related articles to see if an article already exist for this subject.

There are at least three ways of starting a new article.

== From the search results ==

When you do a search for the article and no article appears there will be a message stating that there is no page with the title for your proposed article and that "You can create this page". Simply click on the red portion of this message and then create your article.

== Create a link ==

Create a link to the new article within the text of an existing article. Suppose you want to create an article about mans' best friend.
* Edit an existing article to create a link. For example:
:: <nowiki>William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.</nowiki>
* This will produce:
::William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.
* Click on the "dog link", and you will be taken to a page named "dog".

== Create a temporary link ==

As for the previous method, create a link within an existing page, but click on the link in a preview window and don't actually save the page with the temporary link.

== Categories ==

Please categorize the article by putting appropriate [[Conservapedia:category tag|category tag]]s at the bottom of the new entry.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Help:How to create a new article

2007-05-16T03:31:25Z

ColinR:

Before creating a new article first do a check using the search feature at Conservapedia. You can also look at the [[Conservapedia:Category tag|category tags]] for related articles to see if an article already exist for this subject.

There are at least three ways of starting a new article.

== From the search results ==

When you do a search for the article and no article appears there will be a message stating that there is no page with the title for your proposed article and that "You can create this page". Simply click on the red portion of this message and then create your article.

== Create a link ==

Create a link to the new article within the text of an existing article. Suppose you want to create an article about mans' best friend.
* Edit an existing article to create a link. For example:
:: <nowiki>William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.</nowiki>
* This will produce:
::William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.
* Click on the "dog link", and you will be taken to a page named "dog".

== Create a temporary link ==

As for the previous method, create a link within an existing page, but click on the link in a preview window and don't actually save the page with the temporary link.

== Categories ==

Please put one or more [[Conservapedia:category tag|category tag]]s at the bottom of your new Conservapedia article.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Help:How to create a new article

2007-05-16T03:28:53Z

ColinR: /* Categories */

Before creating a new article first do a check using the search feature at Conservapedia. You can also look at the [[Category tag|category tags]] for related articles to see if an article already exist for this subject.

There are at least three ways of starting a new article.

== From the search results ==

When you do a search for the article and no article appears there will be a message stating that there is no page with the title for your proposed article and that "You can create this page". Simply click on the red portion of this message and then create your article.

== Create a link ==

Create a link to the new article within the text of an existing article. Suppose you want to create an article about mans' best friend.
* Edit an existing article to create a link. For example:
:: <nowiki>William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.</nowiki>
* This will produce:
::William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.
* Click on the "dog link", and you will be taken to a page named "dog".

== Create a temporary link ==

As for the previous method, create a link within an existing page, but click on the link in a preview window and don't actually save the page with the temporary link.

== Categories ==

Please put one or more [[Conservapedia:category tag|category tag]]s at the bottom of your new Conservapedia article.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Talk:Category tag

2007-05-16T03:28:28Z

ColinR: Talk:Category tag moved to Conservapedia talk:Category tag

#REDIRECT [[Conservapedia talk:Category tag]]

Help talk:Category tag

2007-05-16T03:28:28Z

ColinR: Talk:Category tag moved to Conservapedia talk:Category tag

== Which category? ==

Would it be better to make a [[:Category:Wiki editing]] and include this instead and [[Help:Editing]] or even use the existing [[:Category:Help]] instead of [[:Category:Food and drink]]? As it stands, if you go to the food and drink category and see "Category Tag" in there, it seems rather silly. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:I found Category:Conservapedia Guidelines and thought it sounded appropriate. Feel free to correct if I'm wrong. Hmm, does the manual of style article fall into that cat? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Help:Category tag

2007-05-16T03:28:28Z

ColinR: Category tag moved to Conservapedia:Category tag

A '''category tag''' is a tag of the bottom of an article to show what type of article you created. A category tag helps people find your article plus aids in the prevention of duplicate articles being written. For example, Conservapedia has an article called [[Maple syrup]]. At the bottom of that article there is a tag which states that Maple syrup belongs to the category "Food and drink".

Here is how that "Food and drink" category was created at the bottom of the page:

<nowiki>[[Category:Food and drink]]</nowiki>

By adding the above text to this article, it was added to the category of pages called "Food and drink".

If you wanted to put multiple category tags for an article this is easy to do. Here is an example of having multiple category tags for the entry [[Ice cream]]:

<nowiki>[[Category:Food and drink]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Dessert]]</nowiki>
<nowiki>[[Category:Dairy product]]</nowiki>

Technically, you can add categories anywhere in the article, and it will appear at the bottom. However, it is considered good etiquette to put the category tags at the bottom of the article.

*Do not add catagories to articles based upon idealogical or "silly" grounds.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Conservapedia:Editing article and talk pages

2007-05-16T03:26:40Z

ColinR:

The '''Conservapedia Manual of Style''' contains standardized information regarding how to edit pages on Conservapedia. This helps keep a consistent tone in most articles.

==Creation of a new article ==
At Conservapedia it is easy to create a new article as can be seen by our resource: [[Conservapedia:How to create a new article|How to create a new article]].

When you create a new article, please do one or both of the following so people can find your article:
* Link your article from one or more other articles as appropriate.
* Put one or more [[Category tag|Category tags]] at the bottom of your article, preferably for a category that already exists.

==Date style==
*The style "July 4, 1776" is preferred.
*If the day of the week is involved, e.g., "Sunday, December 7, 1941", the comma after the day of the week is optional ("Sunday December 7, 1941" is allowed).
*US Military style is tolerated in context: "4 July 1776".
*If it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, ''Always'' use BC and AD (as opposed to BCE and CE). See [[Anno Domini]] for a full discussion.
==Spell-Checking==

Use correct spelling as often as possible. Some browsers can be equipped with a in-browser spell checker. If you have one of the following browsers, please download the spell checker at the link provided:

*''Internet Explorer'' - download at [http://www.iespell.com/ iespell]
*''Opera'' - download at [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ GNU Aspell]
*''Mozilla Firefox'' - download at [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Spellbound] or update to the latest version of [http://www.getfirefox.com/ Firefox], which has a built-in spelling checker.

==Spelling==
*American English spellings are preferred but Commonwealth spellings, for ''de novo'' or otherwise well-maintained articles are welcome, and edit wars over the subject are seriously discouraged. The context of the article should help resolve edit wars; an article about Britain would use Commonwealth spelling, while an article about the United States would use American English.

==Citing Sources and Using Footnotes==
Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the [[public domain]]. Please do not cite [[Wiki|wikis]] as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

Please also see: [[Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help]]

==Discussion page ==
[[Conservapedia: Discussion page - technical help]]

==Other Topics==
[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Help:How to create a new article

2007-05-16T03:25:58Z

ColinR: How to create a new article moved to Conservapedia:How to create a new article

Before creating a new article first do a check using the search feature at Conservapedia. You can also look at the [[Category tag|category tags]] for related articles to see if an article already exist for this subject.

There are at least three ways of starting a new article.

== From the search results ==

When you do a search for the article and no article appears there will be a message stating that there is no page with the title for your proposed article and that "You can create this page". Simply click on the red portion of this message and then create your article.

== Create a link ==

Create a link to the new article within the text of an existing article. Suppose you want to create an article about mans' best friend.
* Edit an existing article to create a link. For example:
:: <nowiki>William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.</nowiki>
* This will produce:
::William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.
* Click on the "dog link", and you will be taken to a page named "dog".

== Create a temporary link ==

As for the previous method, create a link within an existing page, but click on the link in a preview window and don't actually save the page with the temporary link.

== Categories ==

Please put one or more [[category tag]]s at the bottom of your new Conservapedia article.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Help:How to create a new article

2007-05-16T03:25:47Z

ColinR:

Before creating a new article first do a check using the search feature at Conservapedia. You can also look at the [[Category tag|category tags]] for related articles to see if an article already exist for this subject.

There are at least three ways of starting a new article.

== From the search results ==

When you do a search for the article and no article appears there will be a message stating that there is no page with the title for your proposed article and that "You can create this page". Simply click on the red portion of this message and then create your article.

== Create a link ==

Create a link to the new article within the text of an existing article. Suppose you want to create an article about mans' best friend.
* Edit an existing article to create a link. For example:
:: <nowiki>William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.</nowiki>
* This will produce:
::William Butterworth owned a [[dog]] and cat.
* Click on the "dog link", and you will be taken to a page named "dog".

== Create a temporary link ==

As for the previous method, create a link within an existing page, but click on the link in a preview window and don't actually save the page with the temporary link.

== Categories ==

Please put one or more [[category tag]]s at the bottom of your new Conservapedia article.

[[Category:Conservapedia Guidelines]]

Marijuana

2007-05-15T22:23:46Z

ColinR:

'''Marijuana''' is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, and it is subject to various degrees of legality in different parts of the world. It comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]].

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, mild hallucinations, and an impairment of physical and mental functioning. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment. Some have advocated for decriminalization. <ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref>. Many people of varying political alignment advocate its legalization. <ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

A religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as those of the Rastafari movement or the Sadhus of India. Use of marijuana in a religious capacity is legal for members of the Native American Church, however, members must be registered with the Church and government.{{fact}}

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]

Beer

2007-05-08T18:59:08Z

ColinR: /* Categories */

[[Image:Beer.jpg|right]]'''Beer''' is an [[alcoholic drink]] produced through [[fermentation]] of [[sugar]]s derived primarily from [[malt|malted grains]]. The primary [[grain]] used is usually malted [[barley]], although some styles of beer use malted [[wheat]] or [[oats]] as the primary grain.

The four major ingredients of beer are [[water]], [[malt]], [[hops]] and [[yeast]]. The particular combination, amount and variety of each of these ingredients determine the final flavor, alcoholic strength and style of the finished beer.

Although almost all modern beer styles use [[hops]], early European brewers originally added spices such as rosemary, coriander, ginger, anise seed, and juniper berries to their beers to impart more complex flavors. Hops are used primarily used today because the bitterness derived from the hops tend to counter-balance the sweetness derived from the malt, and provide a more balanced flavor. Hops may also be added to beer to impart a floral or spicy aroma and flavor. Another benefit early brewers found was that hops also tended to help preserve their beers longer than unhopped beers.

The earliest written records of hop cultivation come from 8th and 9th century A.D. from the Hallertau district in [[Germany]], now famous for their Hallertau Mittelfruh hop variety. The earliest actual brewing records explicitly noting the addition of hops come from 14th century Germany.

Although there are [[microorganisms]] that can spoil beer, such as [[lactobacillus]], there are no known human [[pathogens]] than can live in beer. This is commonly thought to be due to the alcohol in the beer, however it is actually due to the [[pH]]; typically in the range of 4.0 to 4.4.
==Categories==
All beers fall in to two categories; Lagers and Ales. The only stylistic exceptions are "hybrid" beers, such as Cream Ales, Kolsch and California Common Beers (Steam Beers).

Lagers are cold [[fermentation|fermented]] with the ‘S. carlsbergensis’ variety of [[yeast]], typically between 46 and 56 F. Complete fermentation of lager beers takes from six weeks to nine months. This brewing technique originated in [[Germany]], where the word ‘lagern’ literally means "to store". Common styles of lager beer are Pilsner and Bock. Most beers brewed by the major American breweries are lagers.

Ales are fermented with the ‘S. cerevisiae’ variety of yeast, at temperatures higher than lagers, typically between 55 and 75 F. The higher fermentation temperature of ales tends to produce beers with a more complex, fruity flavor, usually derived from [[ester|esters]] produced by the yeast during fermentation. Common varieties of ales include Pale Ale, Stout and Porter.

==Styles==
===Lambic===
Lambic is a sub style of sour ales which was originally produced by brewers around [[Brussels]] in the [[Senne Valley]]. Lambic comes in two forms, straight (unblended) Lambic and Fruit Lambic. Lambic beers use hops aged for three years to remove any bitterness, and are added primarily for their preservative effect. These beers are allowed to spontaneously fermented by a variety of wild microorganisms. These microorganisms include wild yeasts and bacteria such as pediococcus and lactobacillus. The bacteria produce acids during fermentation that results in a beer that can be extremely dry and astonishingly tart.

Due to the specific flavors that the wild yeasts and microorganisms in this region of the world produce in Lambic beer, production of this style has not spread to other regions like other beers styles of beer have. Versions of Lambics produced with pure cultures tend to lack the depth of flavor that the Belgian brewers are able to produce.
===Evolution of Styles===
Historically beer styles evolved regionally due to the ingredients that were available to the local brewers. For example, in Scotland hops did not grow well, and were expensive to import. So beers produced by Scottish brewers typically had very low level of bitterness and hop flavor, but well developed malt flavors.
==History==
The earliest known evidence of beer and brewing comes from [[Sumeria]] around 4,000 B.C. The evidence comes from clay tablets inscribed with the [[Hymn to Ninkasi]], the Sumerian's Goddess of brewing, where the hymn contains a rudimentary recipe for beer.
=== Reinheitsgebot ===
The Reinheitsgebolt is the first example of a food purity law. Passed in German in 1516, it decreed that all beers could be made from only water, malt and hops. After the discovery of yeast and its importance in brewing, it was also added to the list.

==References==
==External Links==
*[http://www.coopsmaps.com/beer/hops.html Coops Maps - A short history of hops]
*[http://www.alabev.com/history.htm A short history of beer]
*[http://www.brewery.org/library/ReinHeit.html English translation of the Reinheitsgebot]
*[http://www.bjcp.org/stylecenter.html Beer Judge Certification Program Style Guidelines]

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]

Beer

2007-05-08T18:57:17Z

ColinR: can't forget oat beer

[[Image:Beer.jpg|right]]'''Beer''' is an [[alcoholic drink]] produced through [[fermentation]] of [[sugar]]s derived primarily from [[malt|malted grains]]. The primary [[grain]] used is usually malted [[barley]], although some styles of beer use malted [[wheat]] or [[oats]] as the primary grain.

The four major ingredients of beer are [[water]], [[malt]], [[hops]] and [[yeast]]. The particular combination, amount and variety of each of these ingredients determine the final flavor, alcoholic strength and style of the finished beer.

Although almost all modern beer styles use [[hops]], early European brewers originally added spices such as rosemary, coriander, ginger, anise seed, and juniper berries to their beers to impart more complex flavors. Hops are used primarily used today because the bitterness derived from the hops tend to counter-balance the sweetness derived from the malt, and provide a more balanced flavor. Hops may also be added to beer to impart a floral or spicy aroma and flavor. Another benefit early brewers found was that hops also tended to help preserve their beers longer than unhopped beers.

The earliest written records of hop cultivation come from 8th and 9th century A.D. from the Hallertau district in [[Germany]], now famous for their Hallertau Mittelfruh hop variety. The earliest actual brewing records explicitly noting the addition of hops come from 14th century Germany.

Although there are [[microorganisms]] that can spoil beer, such as [[lactobacillus]], there are no known human [[pathogens]] than can live in beer. This is commonly thought to be due to the alcohol in the beer, however it is actually due to the [[pH]]; typically in the range of 4.0 to 4.4.
==Categories==
All beers fall in to two categories; Lagers and Ales. The only stylistic exceptions are "hybrid" beers, such as Cream Ales, Kolsch and California Common Beers (Steam Beers).

Lagers are cold [[fermentation|fermented]] with the ‘S. carlsbergensis’ variety of [[yeast]], typically between 46 and 56 F. Complete fermentation of lager beers takes from six weeks to nine months. This brewing technique originated in [[Germany]], where the word ‘lagern’ literally means "to store". Common styles of lager beer are Pilsner and Bock.

Ales are fermented with the ‘S. cerevisiae’ variety of yeast, at temperatures higher than lagers, typically between 55 and 75 F. The higher fermentation temperature of ales tends to produce beers with a more complex, fruity flavor, usually derived from [[ester|esters]] produced by the yeast during fermentation. Common varieties of ales include Pale Ale, Stout and Porter.
==Styles==
===Lambic===
Lambic is a sub style of sour ales which was originally produced by brewers around [[Brussels]] in the [[Senne Valley]]. Lambic comes in two forms, straight (unblended) Lambic and Fruit Lambic. Lambic beers use hops aged for three years to remove any bitterness, and are added primarily for their preservative effect. These beers are allowed to spontaneously fermented by a variety of wild microorganisms. These microorganisms include wild yeasts and bacteria such as pediococcus and lactobacillus. The bacteria produce acids during fermentation that results in a beer that can be extremely dry and astonishingly tart.

Due to the specific flavors that the wild yeasts and microorganisms in this region of the world produce in Lambic beer, production of this style has not spread to other regions like other beers styles of beer have. Versions of Lambics produced with pure cultures tend to lack the depth of flavor that the Belgian brewers are able to produce.
===Evolution of Styles===
Historically beer styles evolved regionally due to the ingredients that were available to the local brewers. For example, in Scotland hops did not grow well, and were expensive to import. So beers produced by Scottish brewers typically had very low level of bitterness and hop flavor, but well developed malt flavors.
==History==
The earliest known evidence of beer and brewing comes from [[Sumeria]] around 4,000 B.C. The evidence comes from clay tablets inscribed with the [[Hymn to Ninkasi]], the Sumerian's Goddess of brewing, where the hymn contains a rudimentary recipe for beer.
=== Reinheitsgebot ===
The Reinheitsgebolt is the first example of a food purity law. Passed in German in 1516, it decreed that all beers could be made from only water, malt and hops. After the discovery of yeast and its importance in brewing, it was also added to the list.

==References==
==External Links==
*[http://www.coopsmaps.com/beer/hops.html Coops Maps - A short history of hops]
*[http://www.alabev.com/history.htm A short history of beer]
*[http://www.brewery.org/library/ReinHeit.html English translation of the Reinheitsgebot]
*[http://www.bjcp.org/stylecenter.html Beer Judge Certification Program Style Guidelines]

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]

Universe

2007-05-07T03:20:10Z

ColinR: the universe isn't 28 lightyears in diameter...

The [[universe]] is everything there is in regards to material existence.

Some scientists believe that the universe formed approximately 14 billion years ago, and [[Big Bang Theory|has been expanding]] ever since, making the visible universe about 28 billion [[light year]]s across. Interestingly, modern scientific ideas about the nature of the universe hypothesize that for any location, it appears that that location is at the center of this expansion.

== Young Earth Creationism View ==
Young earth [[creationism|creationists]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe and they also claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Also, these scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of [[astronomy]]. <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astromical bodies are inadequate:

“...most every prediction by theorists about [[planet|planetary]] formation has been wrong.” Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

“We don’t understand how a single [[star]] forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.” Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html</ref>

“We cannot even show convincingly how [[Galaxy|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. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html</ref>

Also, these scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T20:59:00Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

==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)

== 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)

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T05:59:14Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T05:58:52Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T05:36:09Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T04:57:53Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T04:34:36Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T04:30:35Z

ColinR: /* Forgive me */

Astronomy

2007-05-04T03:37:05Z

ColinR: Unprotected "Astronomy": it's not an edit war when you disagree with everyone. quit locking articles.

'''Astronomy''' is the [[science]] of observing space and the objects in it. It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the [[religion]]s of many early [[civilization]]s such as the [[Egpyt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[heaven|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we now call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

== Young Earth Creationism View ==

The [[theory of evolution]] has had considerable influence on fields outside of biology and this includes the field of astronomy. For example, it is common for astronomers to refer to the "evolution of the universe".<ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7042/edsumm/e050602-01.html</ref> [[Young earth creationism|Young earth creationist]] scientists believe the evolutionary view has had a negative effect on science of astronomy and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836</ref>

Young earth [[creationism|creationists]] scientists believe that the first and second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe and they also argue that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created. <ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref>

These scientists also advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the universe.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists contest the [[Big Bang Theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>

==References==

<references/>

==EXTERNAL LINKS==
[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage] 
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal] 
[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society] 
[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association] 
[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start] 

[[Category:Science]]

Astronomy

2007-05-04T03:36:06Z

ColinR: /* Young Earth Creationism View */ if you want to misquote, at least quote the original paper, report, etc.

Talk:Astronomy

2007-05-04T03:31:18Z

ColinR: /* Liberal Opinion stated as fact */

ColinR see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pagan

==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)

==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)

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)

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)

==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)

== 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)

Astronomy

2007-05-04T02:37:42Z

ColinR: returning article focus to the actual subject.

'''Astronomy''' is the science of observing space and the objects in it (excluding Earth). It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the religions of many early civilizations such as the [[Egpyt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[heaven|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we know call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

==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 known (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.

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.

==References==

<references/>

==EXTERNAL LINKS==
[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage] 
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal] 
[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society] 
[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association] 
[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start] 

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Harvard abortion study

2007-05-04T02:35:48Z

ColinR: /* Problems with this article */

Archives: [[01/01]]

:Rarely have a seen a more blatant example of [[junk science]]. You can't exclude people who die of breast cancer, from a study on breast cancer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry but wait just one cotton-picking horn-swaggling carn-sarnint (civility filter on) minute here, it doesnt say that the people who were excluded from followup as a result from death had died of breast cancer. I have a hard time believing they'd just ignore those deaths if they did occur, where on earth did you get tie impression that they did? Further, where the entry reads that it excludes women who got cancer afterwards, its excluding women who did and who didnt have abortions who got cancer afterwards because in those circumstances they're outside of the control of the experiment. You're misreporting out of context factoids that otherwise would show how stirctly they adhered to the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to show how the study ignored the most relevant data it was examining, as though the entire scientific community wouldnt have jumped on their necks already. No wonder why the CPedia front page gloats that "Only on Conservapedia" will use of the scientific method be deemed a sin.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 13:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::#It doesn't say that. It says ''Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked.''
::#Thanks for turning on your civility filter: I read you loud and clear.
::--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that footnote 6 to the article argues that there is not a link between cancer and abortion.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)1048247

How about a link to the actual study so we can draw our own conclusions instead of reading Andy's slanted opinions? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the NY Times's spin on it: [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Abortion-Cancer.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what:
::"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."

actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.63% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.

Please consider your audience. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::That part should probably be rewritten. Basically it means that the women in the study who had children (parous) were 58% more likely to get progesterone negative breast cancer if they ever had an abortion, and the same women were somewhat less likely to get progesterone positive breast cancer. If I did the math right there were 442 breast cancer cases among women who ever had an abortion. 59 (13%) were progresterone negative and 92 (21%) were progesterone positive. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And according to [http://www.breastcancer.org] the prevalence among US women of breast cancer in general is about 1 in 8. Though to extrapolate the risk for PR- from the study (ie, what % of women who had abortions will get it by these figures) we'd need to know the rate of PR- breast cancer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening. Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better. But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In this case, I'm not playing devils advocate or anything. I am genuinely confused by this article. When I read the article as it stands at the moment, I cannot actually understand what it is saying, and whether there is an increased or a decreased risk of cancer if a woman has had an abortion. Perhaps I should come back and readi it tomorrow when all the argy-bargy has finished!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Here's a summary of the findings: breast cancer in general (including all types) was not more likely in women who reported ever having an abortion. Women who reported miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) were somewhat less likely to get breast cancer, though the effect was fairly small and did not quite meet the criterion for statistical significance. Still speaking of all types of breast cancer, the findings were the same regardless of whether the women ever gave birth, or whether an abortion occurred before or after they gave birth. The hormones estrogen and progesterone are implicated in some breast cancers, so they also looked at these specific cancer types. Reported abortion had no effect on the likelihood of getting estrogen receptor positive or estrogen receptor negative (ER+ or ER-) breast cancer. Progresterone receptor positive (PR+) breast cancer was not related to abortion in women who never had kids, and was a little less likely in women who had kids and reported an abortion compared with those with kids and no abortion (that effect also was not quite statistically significant). PR- negative cancer, though, was 58% more likely in women who reported having an abortion if they also had children at some point. About 80% of the women in the study had children. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Great analysis, but I do quibble with your statement about women who did not have any children. The ranges are so wide on the 95% CI that no conclusions can be drawn about them. The numbers are statistically insignificant, another sign of how the 100,000+ women in this study were simply too young for studying breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy - It was statistically not significant, though barely - p = .06 - if I understand correctly what you were referring to. The criterion for statistical significance is arbitrary and doesn't always reflect whether something is meaningful. On the other hand, statistical significance is dependent on the sample size, and with such a huge sample any effect that doesn't reach significance is bound to be small and likely not meaningful. So I can't argue with your quibble. I already have a copy of the article but I appreciate the offer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opinions in article ==

''this age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers.''

This statement is not a fact, however, it leads readers to believe it is. So I changed the sentenced and attributed the sentence to the person that first stated the sentence to make it a fact.

: The analogy is factual. Don't make your change a third time. It's inappropriate to insert someone's user id. into an entry anyway. The page history has that info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Would like to start by pointing out one clear error for starters. At the start of the study, the women where between ages of 29-46 [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814] So, how can one get the avrage age of the womens in the study to be 42 now 14 years later when the yongest women in the study should be atleast 43? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: By the way, I have a copy of the paper and can email to a few '''open-minded''' readers here who want to analyze its or my claims further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would be interested in reading the study to draw my own opinions ... my email link should work. no guarantees as to how quick i'll get to reading the study though. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As no one seams to have an answer to the question i raised, im going to remove the mention about the average age of 42. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:07, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see my edit got reverted, but could i have some explanation why please, as it sounds kinda weird to claim the average age of the women in the reasearch to be 42 when youngest is 43. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I thought I had explained this here, but now I can't see it. So maybe what I wrote was not saved. Your point is a good one.

::: The study ended in 2003, when the youngest would have been 39. The average of 42 applied to those who had an abortion, which means they were on average 12 years old when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. It makes sense that the younger side of the population was more likely to have had an abortion, so an average of 42 is plausible.

::: Regardless, that is the age given by the study says and I've offered to email it to folks who want to analyze it. One took me up on my offer here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

They did a pretty poor job of reporting the age - presumably the 42 reported is at the end of the study, but if they clarified that anywhere I can't find it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's part of the spin, of course. If they reported that of 42 up front, then many informed readers would immediately react, "that's too young for most women to have developed breast cancer!" FYI, I found the age 42 in table 1. Murray, let me know if you need a copy. Your comments are good and I appreciate what you have to say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

For the sake of comparison, the Reuters report on this (I haven't seen the original article so am not sure if this is accurate) said: "Michels' team noted that the studies that had seemed to show abortion caused breast cancer also mostly looked at younger women who had not reached menopause."--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::By the way Andy, thanks for your above comment. Much more data would probably be required for either of us to change our mind about the issue so that we agreed, but it's nice to discuss it calmly and rationally [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Full study text ==

Anyone wanting the study text, contact me. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Colin could you please send me the full study text. --[[User:Staple|Staple]] 18:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see why it would have been necessary to include African American or Hispanic women: their reproductive organs do not differ from that of white women.
The only difference could thus come form lifestyle and environmental differences, but that was not what this study was about.

May I remind everyone here that an earlier study that seemed to show a correlation, was not ripped apart and scrutinized, in fact it was supported and cited from.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ethnicity is a valid issue. Reproductive organs don't differ but genetics sometimes do. Given that breast cancer has a genetic component, it could be different for different ethnic groups (I have no idea whether it is). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You would have a good point, if this was a study about inherited vulnerability to breast cancer.
The existence of a special gene carried by African American or Hispanic women only, that would somehow increase vulnerability to breast cancer, only after an abortion, and not even in the case of a completed pregnancy, seems highly unlikely to me, although I do not have a Ph.D in genetics.
In any case I do not believe this is sufficient to "debunk" this study.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I don't have a PhD in genetics either but that's not quite what I meant. It's possible that, for example, that the prevalence of genetic polymorphisms that are associated with breast cancer occur at different rates in different ethnic groups. At least some polymorphic genes are related to hormone function, and abortion alters hormone function relative to giving birth. So it's conceivable there could be a difference. Having said that, I wouldn't claim that this issue means the study is meaningless, and my reading of the research is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer - my talk page has a list of studies that have found no link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The authors should have disclosed this weakness in their study. Breast cancer prevalence '''does''' have a strong ethnic component. Asians, for example, have breast cancer much less than whites. I bet a significant percentage (e.g., 5%) of the population in the Harvard study were Asian, but the authors concealed that.

: Murray, I looked at your list on your talk page that purports to present studies deny an abortion-breast cancer link. How many of those "studies" have you read? Zero? Less than 10%? Don't you think you should disclose that to the reader???? One that I recognize I have read (Lancet), and it is neither a study nor a denial that abortion increases breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you claim that all 24 articles are "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link." I have read 1 out 24, and your claim is completely false with respect to that article (Lancet). The Lancet article is not a study and it does not deny that abortion increases breast cancer risk. Your claim may also be false for your other 23 articles, which you cannot say you've read.

::: Are you taking an Oprah Winfrey approach here, as in "so what" if the book was false? It's a good book anyway? Or so what if the Wikipedia editor is a fake, his edits were likable any way? Your statement about the Lancet study on your talk page is false in at least two independent ways, and you can't vouch for the other articles either. Enough said. I know I'd immediately correct such a falsehood, but I leave that up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have read the studies. I find it ironic that you falsely claim that I haven't, then dismiss them while proclaiming that you haven't either. If you'll bother to look at the list again, I've listed some details of the methods and the results of many of them, and I will add more as I have time. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly your issue is with the Lancet article. As I said above, it combined data from a number of previous studies and analyzed it. I will quote from it: "...neither the results from the individual studies nor their weighted average suggest any adverse effect on the subsequent risk of breast cancer for women with prospective records of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as an induced abortion, compared with women having no record of such a pregnancy. Furthermore, among the studies with prospective records of induced abortion, no significant variation in the results was found between those with objective and those with self reported information" p. 1010. If you want to claim that doesn't deny that abortion increases breast cancer go right ahead, but your logic is difficult to follow. I guess the collaborative attitude disappears when the data make you unhappy. You don't have to believe the data are accurate, but to deny them without bothering to look is ridiculous. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you have a falsehood on your talk page about the Lancet article, and you're apparently sticking to it. I'm not going to spend all night arguing with you any more than I would spend all night arguing with Oprah Winfrey about her defense of the false book, or Wikipedia's defense of the fake editor. Your quote from Lancet does '''not''' deny that abortion increases breast cancer. It compares the effect of an abortion to a mythical lack of pregnancy. It does [[not]] deny that the pregnant woman increases her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion. If you don't grasp the distinction, then please read, and reread, and reread, until you do. Also, Lancet was not a study.

::: Earlier you said you "read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions." Now you say something quite different, that you "read the studies." Which is it? Regardless, if you read the Lancet article and still insist on calling it a "study" that denies that abortion increases breast cancer, then your persistence in this falsehood would be enough cause for concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess that's the long version of saying that you're not going to bother to read or try to rebut the other studies, or indicate what your issue is with the Lancet article. Yes, I was careless with language in the last post. I read the methods and results of each. Obviously part of the issue here is that we have different definitions of risk. Here's the bottom line: a woman who has an abortion has the same risk of breast cancer as if she'd never been pregnant, or if she had a miscarriage, which is far more common than induced abortion. Pregnancy confers protection, but it does not follow that ending pregnancy increases a woman's risk, '''because her risk remains the same as it was before she got pregnant.''' It's pointless to discuss this further, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further implications that I'm lying. Others should read the studies themselves and draw their own conclusions. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: My opinion hasn't changed that the listing of the Lancet article on your talk page as an example of "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link" is false. Lancet is the only study in that list that I've read. Maybe some or all of the other articles listed are also unjustified. I see from your list that several of the other articles had very few subjects, and may thus be misleading in their claims.

: But I'm not going to spend any more time repeating myself here. I'll refer this to the Conservapedia panel and they will make their own decision. Due to other pressing issues they may not get to this for a while.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't expect your opinion to change Andy, though it would be nice if you would just once explain your reasoning regarding the Lancet article. I have no idea what you're referring to about the panel or what decision there is to be made. I haven't tried to edit what I see as bias out of this article or any others that are relevant. Are you asking the panel to rule on whether to delete my talk page? That's fine, I'm sure they will read each of the studies and that they have the competence to understand them. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I read the study and have a few comments about the study article ...
# ''"The research study excluded women who had abortions and then died from breast cancer!"'' This quote is misleading. The researchers censored women who had forms of carcinoma, which is cancer that can originate and spread elsewhere through the lymphnodes and is not breast specific. This makes sense because you wouldn't want to include cancer that originated in the lung in a breast cancer study.
# ''"The research study treated women who left the specific question about past induced abortions blank, perhaps due to embarrassment, as though they did not have an abortion"'' They addressed this and said they also tried ommitting those who missed questions and did not see a change in results.
# ''"The research report concealed how almost none of the subjects of the study were African American or Hispanic"'' while not covered specifically in the article, my assumption would be that with so many other variables included (age, body mass index, family history, birth control usage, etc) you would want to limit the study to a more similiar group of people. Keeping them of the same/similar race would keep potential conditions that vary by race out.
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was wondering if I should keep waiting for a response to my take on the study ... [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Point 1: No, the follow-up excluded women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

: Point 2: Omitting those who left that question blank is unhelpful. What needs to be disclosed, and wasn't, is what happens when those who left the question blank are counted as having had an abortion. Also, see my reply below to Britinme.

: Point 3: The results are meaningless if the ethnic groups having the highest rates of abortion are omitted. At a minimum, this flaw should be disclosed to the reader and the public, rather than misleading them to think the conclusions apply to all Americans.

: Point 4: There is a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. A miscarriage is natural, and an abortion is not. No one would expect the health consequences to be the same, and they aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't have the time to comment on the other points, but as to point 4, many forms of abortions are biologically very similar to how miscarriages occur. I would a) be very interested in hearing in more detail why you think one would have fewer health consequences (other than the vague issue of being "natural") and b) would be curious if you can point to any evidence that the female body's post-miscarriage reactions are different in any substantial way than those following an abortion(especially in regard to hormone levels and other blood work that could plausibly alter breast cancer rates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::: They aren't similar at all. A miscarriage is something the body causes, anticipates, and heals. An abortion is an unnatural, violent interference with the course of nature, shocking the body in a way it does not expect or want. Almost nothing natural causes cancer, while many unnatural things do cause cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Um, not all (if any) miscarriages are anticipated by the body and I would be more than surprised to see evidence to the contrary. Moreover, plenty of natural things cause cancer. cough*light*cough (UV radiation is a known mutagen which can lead to cancer). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Andy, you didn't read my points very clearly and just respouted what you said earlier. I'm not going to rehash them, but reread everything I wrote, then you can try to tell me I'm wrong. Point 4 is the only one you managed to address properly, even though JoshuaZ and ColinR make good points. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Age of Participants ==

The section on the participants being too young is just wrong. The study indicated that the subjects were ages 29 to 42 when they were enrolled in the study. Since this is longitudinal research (i.e. an over-time study) they have aged since then to 39 to 52. Given the sample size and the longitudinal component, it's unlikely that the sample itself is biased by age.

: Do you also think we could make meaningful claims denying causation of heart disease based on studying teenagers? How about claims deny that cigarette smoking causes cancer based on 20-year-olds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you're sufficiently educated to understand the distinction here. The study is longitudinal, meaning that it enrolled participants and then studied them over a period of time- in this case ten years. So, it did not base its conclusions on a pool of 29-42 year olds but, rather, on a pool of participants who were in that range of ages when the study began but are between 39 and 52 now. While I would certainly like to see the longitudinal component continued for another 10 years or more, the data already available can be used to analyze the question at hand. If abortion does cause breast cancer then we would expect to see a statistically higher rate of cases of breast cancer emerge over those ten years among those who have had abortions than among those who have not. What we see is that women who have had abortions are no more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant and that a completed pregnancy reduces the likelihood of breast cancer. Thus, pregnancy is a protective factor but abortion is not carcinogenic. I don't expect you to recognize that distinction but, at the very least, be honest about the ages of the study's subjects. Your snide comments about studying cancer from smoking in 20 year olds misrepresent my point entirely. A crossectional study wouldn't convince me, but a study that enrolled subjects between the ages of 14 and 26 (median age 20) and then studied them for ten years until they were ages 24 to 36? Well, that's certainly a good start. If smoking does cause cancer, we would expect to see higher cancer rates among smokers over that ten year period, wouldn't we?

:::The above comment is unsigned but correct. The authors specifically deal with the fact that the study is both ''ongoing'' and longitudinal. That is to say, it is continuing into those age groups at which breast cancer rates normally increase. It was specifically designed that way to address weaknesses in earlier studies (dealt with in the references to this study). We will have to await further reports to see if there is any more apparent correlation between abortion and breast cancer as that happens, but if there was a real link you would expect to be seeing some kind of effect as some of the women who were enrolled at the beginning of the study were as old as 42 in 1989, so would now be reaching the age where breast cancer would be more likely regardless of reproductive history. At the moment, no such connection is evident on the basis of this study.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Miscarriages ==

Why does the article claim that miscarriages would not increase cancer rates? I have trouble imagining any biological mechanism that would cause abortion to increase cancer rates that would not apply to miscarriages as well. Do we have any basis for this claim? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:33, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I stated that above in my analysis and have yet to get a response. I thought Andy would be willing to engage in a discussion about my findings after reading the study, but I'm not going to hold my breath. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Problems with this article==

I have just got hold of a copy of the study. This article says that 25% of the respondents showed 'confusion' over the term 'spontaneous abortion' and cites a page reference. I would like to know the exact text on which this term 'confusion' is based, as the article only cites a page reference which is not evident on my downloaded copy. The study says: "Of the 107 721 study participants who returned the 1993 questionnaire, 106 804 (99.1%) answered the question on spontaneous and induced abortion." That doesn't sound like confusion. Moreover, the cohort of women enrolled in this study were "116 671 female registered nurses 25 to 42 years of age", who would as a result of their nursing training definitely not have a problem distinguishing a spontaneous abortion from an induced abortion. There are other problems, but let's look at these first.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: I cannot cut and paste the passage on this computer, but in "Statistical Analysis" it shows that about 25% of respondents did not answer the question on induced abortion at all. Not yes, not no. But they did answer a question on "spontaneous abortion," with about 12% saying "yes" (which seems high). This is confusing. Most people call this "miscarriage", including nurses (few of whom would have any involvement with abortions). They would think of abortion when they see "spontaneous abortion." Confusion may well have been intended, as this mixes the data and will minimizes differences in outcome between those having had abortions and those who did not.

: Whether you agree or not, you can't dispute that 25% failed to answer the most important question in the survey.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::It certainly needs looking at, and I will paste the appropriate paragraph for people more accustomed than me to statistical analysis to comment on. However, let's address the issue of language here. The term 'spontaneous abortion' is the correct medical term for a miscarriage, and the term that was used in the questionnaire. The people answering the questionnaire were all registered nurses - ie had all been fully trained and qualified in nursing. All nurses spend part of their training in obstetrics and gynaecology, and would be familiar with that expression from their medical training. The argument that this highly trained medically qualified group of women would not recognise the term 'spontaneous abortion' as meaning 'miscarriage', especially when paired with the phrase 'induced abortion' as an opposite, is ludicrous. I think even non-medically-qualified people such as yourself would know the difference between the word 'spontaneous' meaning 'happened on its own' and 'induced' meaning 'somebody made it happen' in this context. The article needs changing to remove this rather silly sentence. Incidentally, 12% is not at all 'high' in terms of spontaneous abortion - if anything, it seems to me rather on the low side. A rate of 15-20% is usually quoted. Here is one medical reference that seems to bear that out, when it compares the rate of spontaneous abortion in normal and diabetic women. [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/25/1617]

::The paragraph on statistical analysis reads as follows:

<blockquote>Our analyses included all women who answered the questions on abortion throughout follow-up between 1993 and 2003. In 1993, some women responded only to the question on induced abortion but omitted the spontaneous abortion question and vice versa. Of the 105 716 women included in this analysis, 28 392 did not answer the question on induced abortion but answered the question on spontaneous abortion; 13 652 of these women indicated that they had a spontaneous abortion. We assumed that the women who answered only half of the question did not answer the other question because of an oversight or because they felt that the question did not apply to them; we thus coded the missing response as "no induced abortion." Similarly, 22 768 women did not answer the question on spontaneous abortion in 1993; of these, 9167 answered that they had an induced abortion. We again coded the nonresponses as "no spontaneous abortion." Information on induced and spontaneous abortion was updated biennially; since a response option of "no" was not provided on subsequent questionnaires, a response of "no" was coded for either abortion if "yes" was not marked. We conducted sensitivity analyses of our approach. Results did not change when we excluded nonresponses to half of the 1993 question from the analyses or coded a missing response as "no" only if the other part of the question was answered with "yes." </blockquote>--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The term "spontaneous abortion" is not recognized by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and does not even appear in the definition for [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/miscarriage miscarriage]. While I am open-minded about this, so far it appears to be an effort to confuse the important distinction between abortion and miscarriage, and thereby confuse the very different health effects. Apparently it did confuse 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire in this study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Try reading more than one dictionary. In fact try [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/miscarriage][http://www.bartleby.com/61/1/M0330100.html]
[http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/m/m0330100.html] [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/miscarriage]
[http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/miscarriage.html]. Even in M-W it defines miscarriage as the 'spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus before it is viable and especially between the 12th and 28th weeks of gestation', using the word 'spontaneous' correctly, and in its definition of 'abortion' includes the almost identical phrase 'spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation'. The Oxford dictionary does the same thing. [http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/miscarriage?view=uk]. To maintain as you do that medically-trained women would be confused by this commonly-used expression is downright silly and undermines the whole credibility of your argument.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 15:32, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

If I may interject, the problem with studies like this is that they are used by partisans to justify their preconceived notions. It's like the ''New York Times'' claiming that women are more likely to be beaten by their husband than by anyone else; therefore, it's better for women to single than married. You have to dig into it to discover that they included the most violent category of live-in lover as a "husband" in the study, i.e., a man to whom the woman is not legally married (no marriage license).

So many other studies have similar problems. I first started learning about "statisticulation" like this by reading [[Darrell Huff]]'s classic on junk math: ''How to Lie With Statistics''. I got 760 on my math SAT, so I'm awfully hard to fool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::As one with multiple family members in the health and medicine field, who all know the term "spontaneous abortion" to mean miscarriage, despite not being in a ob-gyn specialty, I would be incredibly alarmed if that large of a percentage of nurses was not familiar with a standard medical term. In fact, I would safely say that one could conduct a poll at a local hospital and find that most, if not all, nurses know what "spontaneous abortion" means. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a well-known fact that the wording of questions has a significant impact on surveys, often more than the typical 4% margin of error which comes from small sample size. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I just asked an M.D. and she said "miscarriage" is a far more common and familiar term than "spontaneous abortion." The latter term is plainly an effort to confuse the two very different events, and make an abortion seem to be the same as a miscarriage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::::It probably is more familiar to non-medically-trained people. However, the point is that all these women were registered nurses with medical training. You haven't dealt with that issue and it won't go away if you ignore it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, English isn't my native language, actually its 3th foreign language for me and i have no medical training. Still i would understand what was meant with "spontaneous abortion". I would be very worryed if native english speaker with medical training wouldn't. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 13:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Aschlafly - you keep stating that the researchers 'concealed' the fact that only a minority of participants in the study were from other than non-Hispanic white background. This implies a deliberate concealment. As far as I can see in the report they were absolutely open about the fact that 92% of their participants were non-Hispanic whites, and in fact even drew attention to it by pointing out that this meant they were from a group that might be less likely for sociological reasons to seek an abortion. Since anybody who reads the report can see this, on what basis are you making the assertion that it was deliberately concealed?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: You tell me: what percentage of the participants were black? Hispanic? It's concealed. Even the 92% figure is buried very deep in the article, where few (and certainly not the press) are likely to notice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Please could we also settle the issue of potential misunderstanding of the words 'spontaneous abortion'? I think you are utterly mistaken in your view that it could be confusing, but if you insist on keeping that viewpoint in the article, it needs to be balanced by pointing out that the study participants were all registered nurses who would have encountered that phrase during their training.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: 25% of the respondents were confused by the question. Enough said. "Spontaneous abortion" is not the customary term for a miscarriage inside or outside the medical profession. Nurses wouldn't use the contrived term any more than a lay person would.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::Um, yes they would. Every health care professional I know uses the term "spontaneous abortion" when talking to others in their profession, just as I'm sure there is plenty of law jargon you use with other lawyers, but not with clients or non-law people. And yes, it is the customary term in the medical profession, otherwise, I'm sure the study would have used another term. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 22:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:CPWebmaster

2007-05-03T06:09:23Z

ColinR: /* Changing User Name */

<div style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0; width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 200px; color: white; padding: 0;">

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; float:left; background-color: #97c000; width: 85%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; padding-left: 0.5em;">
<div style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; padding-top: 0.1em;">Welcome to CPWebmaster's (aka: [[User:AmesG/PanelEvolution|Fearless Leader]]) talk page</div>
<div style="font-size: 70%; text-align: center; padding: 0.2em;">This talk page is best viewed in Mozilla Firefox.</div>
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #74c0fa; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="font-size: 120%;">[[User_talk:CPWebmaster/Archive1|Archive1]]</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #4f402b; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomright: 16px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 16px; background-color: #fff; width: 85%; margin-left: 0; margin-right: auto; padding: 0.5em; color: black;">

== Uploads ==

Dude, what is the deal with [[Special:Upload]]? I can ''never'' cause it to function appropriately. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pic==
LOL! Love the banner on your user page. Ames will be pleased :P. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== User Boxes... ==

Do I understand yours to mean you have something against Poultry? I'm shocked! Were do you stand on Turkey and Chicken, Mr. Webmaster? Exactly. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Love==
I think the new look of your user page is simply ''fabulous!''.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 21:35, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

Ben... you're a riot [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: Responded via email... dislike it. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 10:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gosh, that is so "un-wiki" like, a private response, I would have been insulted for doing that, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Philip, could you please explain what you have against my policy. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 09:32, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tim, I believe that this Wiki is something like a free-market. You have the supply (us editors) and the demand (people who want to use the site). What usually happens when a free-market becomes regulated? It is no longer free. Rules and regulations destroy the system. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 09:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::So you prefer Anarchy? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 14:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: No Tim. Rules that are essential to the site such as no obscenity, etc. are the only rules that are needed. In the real world this would be comparable to laws against murder, stealing, etc. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 17:05, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

==Unblock Myk==
I have agreed to unblocking Myk. Is there a function with which to do so? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks, Karajou, I was supposed to message you too, but so much is happening it was delayed. I will do it for you, the unblocking.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Change to the T-Rex page==
CPwebmaster, why the change on the T-Rex page? The research was cited and just released. Did you happen to read it before reverting?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with TimS' edits (and I will explain why on the talk page tomorrow), but neither do I agree with the amount that you removed. In cases like there where there is obviously or likely to be disagreement, couldn't you at the very least explain your rationale in the edit comment or on the talk page? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:: Yes... I did remove too much information... fixed [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Missing Links ==

For the computer illiterate, like me, would you consider restoring the link to "Special Pages" on the left? It is missing on several pages I was just on, but shows here on your own page...... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good block ==

Good block this morning. The contributor has made many valid edits, so the one week time period is appropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:24, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== request ==

I sent a letter of assistance regarding our abortion articles to right to life groups and I sent about 40 emails. Keep an eye on my user discussion page for people saying they are interested in being Admins/SYSOPS. Look at their edits and promote them to Admins if you think it is warranted. Here is my discussion page: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Conservative [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Could you please revert the [[macroevolution]] article to the way it was before it was submitted to the panel? I left you a diff on the talk page. I understood that this was the policy regarding the panel - at least that's how it was with [[evolution]].-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:52, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::I really don't see why this should be done. The article in its present state is perfectly acceptable. Also, I don't know of the policy you speak of. Can you point it out? Thanks [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 12:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== [[CP:RFA]] ==

Someone needs to periodically update this, and take the appropriate course of action for the applicants, and you seem to be a likely canidate. Thanks. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 21:53, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anti Gun ==

I'm anti-gun, however I like to play devil's advocate sometimes. I do not believe that academic discourse can progress without competing ideas. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 20:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: That is awesome! It's great to see some thinkers around here. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edit War with Conservative ==

CPWebmaster, I was upholding the decision of the panel. See the discussion on Philip J. Rayment's talk page [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#question_regarding_pro_evolutionary_books_being_added_to_TOE_article here]. The Panel approved a version of the article ''with'' the free online text of "The Origin of Species", though Conservative removed the link merely eight minutes before the Panel made it's decision (Conservative removed book at 18:21 April 9, decision made 18:29 April 9); clearly too short of a time, as the panel had been deliberating for quite some time. Andy has also made his anti-censorship view very explicit. Other sysops had also supported the inclusion of the book, as it is the single most relevant book on the topic that exists. The pro-inclusion sysops provided their reasons and justifications, though Conservative kept reverting without ''any'' justification, or discussion (except for an attempt to draw the conversation off topic at [[Talk:Theory of evolution]]). Perhaps you should warn [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] to not work against what has been made explicitly clear. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't. Please do not get into any more revert wars with Conservative or any other user. Thank you. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=96144 Here] is where the panel says that addition of references and further reading books is acceptable. And please, warn the other party in this edit war as well, as he is equally guilty. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: Forgive me, but it is hard to avoid an edit war when you cite justifications for your edits, ''prove'' that you are undoubtedly correct, and the [[User:Conservative|other user]] provides no justification and runs from answering any kind of question. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT) 
::::What other revert wars is [[User:Hojimachong| Hojimachong]] engaged in?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 20:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::None, at the moment. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I fully understand that edit wars are bad to engage in, and should be avoided. But I think you are missing my point as well; There was evidence to back up a specific view, posted on the talk page, and told to Conservative even ''before'' he removed the books (He ''asked'' Philip J. Rayment about removing the books. Philip said he shouldn't; Conservative did it anyways). I think Conservative needs to be reprimanded in some way, shape, or form; I don't see him being warned for the edit war. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Once again, Conservative made a change against the panel, consensus, and Andy. When is this ''vandalism'' going to be taken note of? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

CPWebmaster, I want to highlight two things that you said:
* "''I'm talking about the revert wars in general, not so much this specific case.''"
* "''You're dodging the bullet. Please just don't get into any revert wars. They waste everyone's time.''"
Okay, perhaps Hojimachong has been involved in other edit wars; I haven't checked. And if true, and if that is not true of Conservative, then perhaps you do have a defence for what is otherwise a prima-facie case of favouritism. But you also seem to be "dodging the bullet" yourself. On Wikipedia, ''both'' editors would have been given blocks twice over for this particular incident, and ''both'' editors are "wasting everyone's time". You also said:
* "''Where does the Panel's decision state that the ref's cannot be changed? It doesn't.''"
That's precisely the point. I "changed" (added) some references (books for further reading), and Conservative started the revert war (in the sense that he made the first reversion) by removing them on the grounds that they were against the Panel's decision. You have here acknowledged that they are not against the Panel's decision, indicating that it was Conservative who was in the wrong, yet it is Hojimaching that you are warning.

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, I agree with Conservative's worldview, and disagree with some of Hojimachong's. And it was Conservative that first suggested that I be a sysop. It pains me to have to take a stand against him on this, but I believe that truth and justice  warrants it in this case.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well spoken, Philip. For me, this all fell under the "two wrongs don't make a right" consideration. Those who have been around more than a month know I have publicly disagreed with Sysop Conservative many times. Not on ideological or political grounds, but because of this absolute unwillingness to engage others, or even answer their questions. And I don't agree with blocking people without some explanation, if only to fellow Sysop's. He has gotten much better at responding, however. All of the points above, raised by everyone don't make engaging in a squalid public fight over editing, conducted by Sysop's, right. It is hard to preach to editors not to do something Administrators are constantly doing, eh? No matter if it is reverting each other's edits, or reverting blocks, it is the same principle; "Do as I say, not as I do". I think that is more what the Webmaster's point was, knowing full well the danger of supposition. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:10, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with my watchlist ==

I appear to be having problems with my watchlist. Occasionally I notice articles that are changed are not appearing on my watchlist. It appears to be articles which have been protected. Protected articles that I put on my watchlist, or that I edit, are okay, but articles that I already have on my watchlist that are then protected don't appear, at least sometimes (until I edit them again). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== small favor ==

I permanently blocked someone and it was by mistake. I think I fixed it but I am not sure. Please make sure Bill_M can edit. 00:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: He's not blocked. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Changing User Name ==

I'm wondering how I can change my User Name. Can it be done? If so, how? Please let me know. --[[User:Jtpaladin|Jtpaladin]] 21:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
: It would probably be best to just create a new account. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 23:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::Any bureaucrat can handle a name change for you. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:09, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== My contributions ==

I think there's something wrong with my contributions, all edits prior to today seem to have vanished [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Aschl%D0%B0fly link]. Would you be able to look into it for me? Thank you and God bless. [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
: No there isn't. Look back in the recent changes for the creation of a new 'User:Aschlafly'. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]
:: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers Here]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

So is it possible to ban the fake ASchlafly and the fake Conservative before they do more damage to the site and to the reputations of the real things?--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sure, as long as the person doing it know what they are doing and pays attention. Oh................well...........it would normally be possible but after all SYSOP promotion here has little to do with understanding what the heck you are doing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't know. No mods seem to be currently active. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

Astronomy

2007-05-03T06:08:23Z

ColinR: "speculation" was cited.

'''Astronomy''' is the science of observing space and the objects in it (excluding Earth). It has been studied since ancient times, forming a major part of the religions of many early civilizations such as the [[Egpyt|Egyptians]] and the [[Aztecs]]. The great stone henge at [[Stonehenge]] in [[England]] is also thought to be an astronomical observatory. The handing down of complex astronomical teachings shows these early [[civilization]]s must have had formalized systems of [[education]].

Astronomy was crucial to the development of [[safe]] and accurate [[navigation]] for ships, and observations of the movement of [[heaven|heavenly bodies]] helped lead to the theories we know call [[physics]]. In fact, much of astronomy today relies physics, thus many astronomers are considered astrophysicists. 

==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 known (4.6 billion years) 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.

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.

==References==

<references/>

==EXTERNAL LINKS==
[http://www.nasa.gov The NASA Homepage] 
[http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov The NASA Planetary Photojournal] 
[http://www.aas.org American Astronomical Society] 
[http://www.britastro.org/baa/ British Astronomical Association] 
[http://www.john-duck.co.uk/html/astronomy.html A guide on how to start] 

[[Category:Science]]

Socialism

2007-05-02T22:57:46Z

ColinR: /* British socialism */

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, ''Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!'']]
'''Socialism''' is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "progressive" social policy or directly via nationalisation and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accummulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal healthcare, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian comunities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that coud be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favour of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America.

== British socialism ==

British socialism alleges to maintain benefits and incentives that existed in a free economy while promoting reforms intended to provide better working and living conditions for workers. The British government of 1945-1951 under Clement Atlee were stringent socialists who implemented the "nationalisation" of several industries. Nationalising the health care industry made it more accesible to all in theory, however the system has been plagued by long waiting lists and lack of modernization and improvements. Subsequently, the introduction of the NHS led to a sharp rise in life expectancy and a dramatic fall in infant deaths.{{fact}} As a result of these socialist elements, Britain maintained a healthy mixed economy, ensuring that the economy grew substantially {{fact}} while supporting through the welfare state to protect the poor.

The supposedly socialist Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]]{{fact}}, [[Tony Blair]], is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>. In Britain, Catholics are [[discriminate]]d{{fact}} against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but Blair has never done so.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Ass

2007-05-02T21:57:20Z

ColinR: Redirecting to Donkey

#redirect [[Donkey]]

Talk:Cloud

2007-05-02T21:51:13Z

ColinR: /* Dust vs. Condensation */

==Dust vs. Condensation==
How much of a cloud is dust and how much is condensation? Good question. I think it varies depending on the type of cloud and how high or low it is in the atmosphere. Scientists actually have a hard time agreeing on a definition for a cloud and where it actually starts or begins. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 20:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't see anything about "dust". Rain clouds are made up of water (either drops or ice). A "dust cloud" is something different. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::Water vapor condenses around dust and other small particles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm watching a documentary about clouds, and it says that cosmic rays are really subatomic particles. These particles combine with water vapor to form droplets. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:I would question that. Cosmic rays move so fast that I don't see how water could condense around them. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:51, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

9/11 conspiracy theories

2007-05-02T21:46:46Z

ColinR:

9/11 conspiracy theories are usually claims that the [[United States]] government attacked it's own country on [[9/11|September 11]], 2001. The "evidence" provided by the conspiracy theorists, also known as "[[9/11 truthers]]" is widely debunked. Some information is provided here.

==World trade Center #7==
There are claims that WTC #7 was brought down by controlled demolition on 9/11. Supporters of this theory show photographs of the building from a misleading angle (it omits the smoke that seemed to pour out of the building due to fires inside). Many more photos exist that show massive fires burned throughout the building.

Some quote an owner of WTC #7 as saying they demolished the building. These people say that when he said in an interview that they decided to "pull" the building, he meant demolish. However, in this instance, "pull" does not mean demolish; it means to pull-out.

[[Rosie O'Donnell]] recently said that she believes WTC #7 was brought down by the government.<ref>http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272612184.shtml</ref>

==Black smoke==
Black smoke was seen coming out of WTC #7 and other places on 9/11. A common conspiracy theory says that black smoke means that a fire is starved of oxygen, and therefore can easily be put out. It is said that the firefighter's did not attempt to put out the fire, in this case. In the past, this might have been true, but petroleum burns very hot and is difficult to put out, and yet it also gives off black smoke. There was probably petroleum in the seventh tower.

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Solar variation

2007-05-02T21:44:23Z

ColinR: you can't just put a picture up for an article. someone needs to write something about this image or i will delete the entry.

[[Image:Temp solar.png|thumb]]

File talk:Temp solar.png

2007-05-02T21:43:28Z

ColinR: New page: Are we able to legally use this image, and if so, can we not get one with a little better resolution? ~~~~

Are we able to legally use this image, and if so, can we not get one with a little better resolution? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Improvement

2007-05-02T21:42:06Z

ColinR:

==Links==
*[[Special:ShoImprove these "stubs" by adding more information to the entry.rtpages|Short Pages]]
:Improve these "stubs" by adding more information to the entry.
*[[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted Pages]]
:These are nonexistent entries that need to be created since other pages link to them
*[[Special:DeadEndpages|Dead End Pages]]
:Improve these pages by adding links to other pages. Add links by putting double brackets around a word. for example, <nowiki>[[George Washington]]</nowiki> gives [[George Washington]]
*[[Special:Lonelypages|Pages not Linked to by Other Pages]]
:Add links to these pages in other pages
*[[Special:Popularpages|Popular Pages]]
*[[Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive]]

Conservapedia:Improvement

2007-05-02T21:41:28Z

ColinR:

==Links==
*[[Special:ShoImprove these "stubs" by adding more information to the entry.rtpages|Short Pages]]
:Improve these "stubs" by adding more information to the entry.
*[[Special:Wantedpages|Wanted Pages]]
*[[Special:DeadEndpages|Dead End Pages]]
:Improve these pages by adding links to other pages. Add links by putting double brackets around a word. for example, <nowiki>[[George Washington]]</nowiki> gives [[George Washington]]
*[[Special:Lonelypages|Pages not Linked to by Other Pages]]
:Add links to these pages in other pages
*[[Special:Popularpages|Popular Pages]]
*[[Conservapedia:Article Improvement Drive]]

Catalyst

2007-05-02T21:33:29Z

ColinR:

A '''catalyst''' is a substance that alters the activation energy of a [[chemical reaction]] but does not get consumed in the process.<ref>Wile, Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Biology''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998.</ref> A [[protein]] that acts as a catalyst is called an [[enzyme]].
==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]

Conservapedia:Improvement

2007-05-02T21:32:32Z

ColinR: rearranged links

Conservapedia:Improvement

2007-05-02T21:20:06Z

ColinR:

==Links==
*[[Special:DeadEndpages|Dead End Pages]]
*[[Special:Lonelypages|Pages not Linked to by Other Pages]]
*[[Special:Popularpages|Popular Pages]]

Methane

2007-05-02T21:16:47Z

ColinR: methane isn't created by farting.

'''Methane''' is a [[chemical]] substance CH4 found in a high percentage in [[natural gas]]. It is also a common byproduct of digestion in animals.

According to the [[United Nations]] Food and Agriculture Organization, [[scientists]] believe that methane emissions from the increasing numbers of cattle may contribute to [[climate change]].<ref>[http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html Livestock a major threat to environment: Remedies urgently needed] </ref>.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category: ecology]]
[[Category: Chemistry]]

Talk:Harvard abortion study

2007-05-02T16:55:05Z

ColinR: /* Problems with this article */

:Rarely have a seen a more blatant example of [[junk science]]. You can't exclude people who die of breast cancer, from a study on breast cancer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry but wait just one cotton-picking horn-swaggling carn-sarnint (civility filter on) minute here, it doesnt say that the people who were excluded from followup as a result from death had died of breast cancer. I have a hard time believing they'd just ignore those deaths if they did occur, where on earth did you get tie impression that they did? Further, where the entry reads that it excludes women who got cancer afterwards, its excluding women who did and who didnt have abortions who got cancer afterwards because in those circumstances they're outside of the control of the experiment. You're misreporting out of context factoids that otherwise would show how stirctly they adhered to the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to show how the study ignored the most relevant data it was examining, as though the entire scientific community wouldnt have jumped on their necks already. No wonder why the CPedia front page gloats that "Only on Conservapedia" will use of the scientific method be deemed a sin.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 13:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::#It doesn't say that. It says ''Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked.''
::#Thanks for turning on your civility filter: I read you loud and clear.
::--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that footnote 6 to the article argues that there is not a link between cancer and abortion.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)1048247

How about a link to the actual study so we can draw our own conclusions instead of reading Andy's slanted opinions? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the NY Times's spin on it: [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Abortion-Cancer.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what:
::"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."

actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.63% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.

Please consider your audience. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::That part should probably be rewritten. Basically it means that the women in the study who had children (parous) were 58% more likely to get progesterone negative breast cancer if they ever had an abortion, and the same women were somewhat less likely to get progesterone positive breast cancer. If I did the math right there were 442 breast cancer cases among women who ever had an abortion. 59 (13%) were progresterone negative and 92 (21%) were progesterone positive. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And according to [http://www.breastcancer.org] the prevalence among US women of breast cancer in general is about 1 in 8. Though to extrapolate the risk for PR- from the study (ie, what % of women who had abortions will get it by these figures) we'd need to know the rate of PR- breast cancer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening. Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better. But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In this case, I'm not playing devils advocate or anything. I am genuinely confused by this article. When I read the article as it stands at the moment, I cannot actually understand what it is saying, and whether there is an increased or a decreased risk of cancer if a woman has had an abortion. Perhaps I should come back and readi it tomorrow when all the argy-bargy has finished!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Here's a summary of the findings: breast cancer in general (including all types) was not more likely in women who reported ever having an abortion. Women who reported miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) were somewhat less likely to get breast cancer, though the effect was fairly small and did not quite meet the criterion for statistical significance. Still speaking of all types of breast cancer, the findings were the same regardless of whether the women ever gave birth, or whether an abortion occurred before or after they gave birth. The hormones estrogen and progesterone are implicated in some breast cancers, so they also looked at these specific cancer types. Reported abortion had no effect on the likelihood of getting estrogen receptor positive or estrogen receptor negative (ER+ or ER-) breast cancer. Progresterone receptor positive (PR+) breast cancer was not related to abortion in women who never had kids, and was a little less likely in women who had kids and reported an abortion compared with those with kids and no abortion (that effect also was not quite statistically significant). PR- negative cancer, though, was 58% more likely in women who reported having an abortion if they also had children at some point. About 80% of the women in the study had children. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Great analysis, but I do quibble with your statement about women who did not have any children. The ranges are so wide on the 95% CI that no conclusions can be drawn about them. The numbers are statistically insignificant, another sign of how the 100,000+ women in this study were simply too young for studying breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy - It was statistically not significant, though barely - p = .06 - if I understand correctly what you were referring to. The criterion for statistical significance is arbitrary and doesn't always reflect whether something is meaningful. On the other hand, statistical significance is dependent on the sample size, and with such a huge sample any effect that doesn't reach significance is bound to be small and likely not meaningful. So I can't argue with your quibble. I already have a copy of the article but I appreciate the offer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opinions in article ==

''this age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers.''

This statement is not a fact, however, it leads readers to believe it is. So I changed the sentenced and attributed the sentence to the person that first stated the sentence to make it a fact.

: The analogy is factual. Don't make your change a third time. It's inappropriate to insert someone's user id. into an entry anyway. The page history has that info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Would like to start by pointing out one clear error for starters. At the start of the study, the women where between ages of 29-46 [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814] So, how can one get the avrage age of the womens in the study to be 42 now 14 years later when the yongest women in the study should be atleast 43? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: By the way, I have a copy of the paper and can email to a few '''open-minded''' readers here who want to analyze its or my claims further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would be interested in reading the study to draw my own opinions ... my email link should work. no guarantees as to how quick i'll get to reading the study though. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As no one seams to have an answer to the question i raised, im going to remove the mention about the average age of 42. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:07, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see my edit got reverted, but could i have some explanation why please, as it sounds kinda weird to claim the average age of the women in the reasearch to be 42 when youngest is 43. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I thought I had explained this here, but now I can't see it. So maybe what I wrote was not saved. Your point is a good one.

::: The study ended in 2003, when the youngest would have been 39. The average of 42 applied to those who had an abortion, which means they were on average 12 years old when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. It makes sense that the younger side of the population was more likely to have had an abortion, so an average of 42 is plausible.

::: Regardless, that is the age given by the study says and I've offered to email it to folks who want to analyze it. One took me up on my offer here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

They did a pretty poor job of reporting the age - presumably the 42 reported is at the end of the study, but if they clarified that anywhere I can't find it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's part of the spin, of course. If they reported that of 42 up front, then many informed readers would immediately react, "that's too young for most women to have developed breast cancer!" FYI, I found the age 42 in table 1. Murray, let me know if you need a copy. Your comments are good and I appreciate what you have to say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

For the sake of comparison, the Reuters report on this (I haven't seen the original article so am not sure if this is accurate) said: "Michels' team noted that the studies that had seemed to show abortion caused breast cancer also mostly looked at younger women who had not reached menopause."--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::By the way Andy, thanks for your above comment. Much more data would probably be required for either of us to change our mind about the issue so that we agreed, but it's nice to discuss it calmly and rationally [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Full study text ==

Anyone wanting the study text, contact me. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Colin could you please send me the full study text. --[[User:Staple|Staple]] 18:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see why it would have been necessary to include African American or Hispanic women: their reproductive organs do not differ from that of white women.
The only difference could thus come form lifestyle and environmental differences, but that was not what this study was about.

May I remind everyone here that an earlier study that seemed to show a correlation, was not ripped apart and scrutinized, in fact it was supported and cited from.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ethnicity is a valid issue. Reproductive organs don't differ but genetics sometimes do. Given that breast cancer has a genetic component, it could be different for different ethnic groups (I have no idea whether it is). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You would have a good point, if this was a study about inherited vulnerability to breast cancer.
The existence of a special gene carried by African American or Hispanic women only, that would somehow increase vulnerability to breast cancer, only after an abortion, and not even in the case of a completed pregnancy, seems highly unlikely to me, although I do not have a Ph.D in genetics.
In any case I do not believe this is sufficient to "debunk" this study.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I don't have a PhD in genetics either but that's not quite what I meant. It's possible that, for example, that the prevalence of genetic polymorphisms that are associated with breast cancer occur at different rates in different ethnic groups. At least some polymorphic genes are related to hormone function, and abortion alters hormone function relative to giving birth. So it's conceivable there could be a difference. Having said that, I wouldn't claim that this issue means the study is meaningless, and my reading of the research is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer - my talk page has a list of studies that have found no link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The authors should have disclosed this weakness in their study. Breast cancer prevalence '''does''' have a strong ethnic component. Asians, for example, have breast cancer much less than whites. I bet a significant percentage (e.g., 5%) of the population in the Harvard study were Asian, but the authors concealed that.

: Murray, I looked at your list on your talk page that purports to present studies deny an abortion-breast cancer link. How many of those "studies" have you read? Zero? Less than 10%? Don't you think you should disclose that to the reader???? One that I recognize I have read (Lancet), and it is neither a study nor a denial that abortion increases breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you claim that all 24 articles are "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link." I have read 1 out 24, and your claim is completely false with respect to that article (Lancet). The Lancet article is not a study and it does not deny that abortion increases breast cancer risk. Your claim may also be false for your other 23 articles, which you cannot say you've read.

::: Are you taking an Oprah Winfrey approach here, as in "so what" if the book was false? It's a good book anyway? Or so what if the Wikipedia editor is a fake, his edits were likable any way? Your statement about the Lancet study on your talk page is false in at least two independent ways, and you can't vouch for the other articles either. Enough said. I know I'd immediately correct such a falsehood, but I leave that up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have read the studies. I find it ironic that you falsely claim that I haven't, then dismiss them while proclaiming that you haven't either. If you'll bother to look at the list again, I've listed some details of the methods and the results of many of them, and I will add more as I have time. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly your issue is with the Lancet article. As I said above, it combined data from a number of previous studies and analyzed it. I will quote from it: "...neither the results from the individual studies nor their weighted average suggest any adverse effect on the subsequent risk of breast cancer for women with prospective records of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as an induced abortion, compared with women having no record of such a pregnancy. Furthermore, among the studies with prospective records of induced abortion, no significant variation in the results was found between those with objective and those with self reported information" p. 1010. If you want to claim that doesn't deny that abortion increases breast cancer go right ahead, but your logic is difficult to follow. I guess the collaborative attitude disappears when the data make you unhappy. You don't have to believe the data are accurate, but to deny them without bothering to look is ridiculous. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you have a falsehood on your talk page about the Lancet article, and you're apparently sticking to it. I'm not going to spend all night arguing with you any more than I would spend all night arguing with Oprah Winfrey about her defense of the false book, or Wikipedia's defense of the fake editor. Your quote from Lancet does '''not''' deny that abortion increases breast cancer. It compares the effect of an abortion to a mythical lack of pregnancy. It does [[not]] deny that the pregnant woman increases her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion. If you don't grasp the distinction, then please read, and reread, and reread, until you do. Also, Lancet was not a study.

::: Earlier you said you "read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions." Now you say something quite different, that you "read the studies." Which is it? Regardless, if you read the Lancet article and still insist on calling it a "study" that denies that abortion increases breast cancer, then your persistence in this falsehood would be enough cause for concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess that's the long version of saying that you're not going to bother to read or try to rebut the other studies, or indicate what your issue is with the Lancet article. Yes, I was careless with language in the last post. I read the methods and results of each. Obviously part of the issue here is that we have different definitions of risk. Here's the bottom line: a woman who has an abortion has the same risk of breast cancer as if she'd never been pregnant, or if she had a miscarriage, which is far more common than induced abortion. Pregnancy confers protection, but it does not follow that ending pregnancy increases a woman's risk, '''because her risk remains the same as it was before she got pregnant.''' It's pointless to discuss this further, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further implications that I'm lying. Others should read the studies themselves and draw their own conclusions. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: My opinion hasn't changed that the listing of the Lancet article on your talk page as an example of "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link" is false. Lancet is the only study in that list that I've read. Maybe some or all of the other articles listed are also unjustified. I see from your list that several of the other articles had very few subjects, and may thus be misleading in their claims.

: But I'm not going to spend any more time repeating myself here. I'll refer this to the Conservapedia panel and they will make their own decision. Due to other pressing issues they may not get to this for a while.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't expect your opinion to change Andy, though it would be nice if you would just once explain your reasoning regarding the Lancet article. I have no idea what you're referring to about the panel or what decision there is to be made. I haven't tried to edit what I see as bias out of this article or any others that are relevant. Are you asking the panel to rule on whether to delete my talk page? That's fine, I'm sure they will read each of the studies and that they have the competence to understand them. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I read the study and have a few comments about the study article ...
# ''"The research study excluded women who had abortions and then died from breast cancer!"'' This quote is misleading. The researchers censored women who had forms of carcinoma, which is cancer that can originate and spread elsewhere through the lymphnodes and is not breast specific. This makes sense because you wouldn't want to include cancer that originated in the lung in a breast cancer study.
# ''"The research study treated women who left the specific question about past induced abortions blank, perhaps due to embarrassment, as though they did not have an abortion"'' They addressed this and said they also tried ommitting those who missed questions and did not see a change in results.
# ''"The research report concealed how almost none of the subjects of the study were African American or Hispanic"'' while not covered specifically in the article, my assumption would be that with so many other variables included (age, body mass index, family history, birth control usage, etc) you would want to limit the study to a more similiar group of people. Keeping them of the same/similar race would keep potential conditions that vary by race out.
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was wondering if I should keep waiting for a response to my take on the study ... [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Point 1: No, the follow-up excluded women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

: Point 2: Omitting those who left that question blank is unhelpful. What needs to be disclosed, and wasn't, is what happens when those who left the question blank are counted as having had an abortion. Also, see my reply below to Britinme.

: Point 3: The results are meaningless if the ethnic groups having the highest rates of abortion are omitted. At a minimum, this flaw should be disclosed to the reader and the public, rather than misleading them to think the conclusions apply to all Americans.

: Point 4: There is a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. A miscarriage is natural, and an abortion is not. No one would expect the health consequences to be the same, and they aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't have the time to comment on the other points, but as to point 4, many forms of abortions are biologically very similar to how miscarriages occur. I would a) be very interested in hearing in more detail why you think one would have fewer health consequences (other than the vague issue of being "natural") and b) would be curious if you can point to any evidence that the female body's post-miscarriage reactions are different in any substantial way than those following an abortion(especially in regard to hormone levels and other blood work that could plausibly alter breast cancer rates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::: They aren't similar at all. A miscarriage is something the body causes, anticipates, and heals. An abortion is an unnatural, violent interference with the course of nature, shocking the body in a way it does not expect or want. Almost nothing natural causes cancer, while many unnatural things do cause cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Um, not all (if any) miscarriages are anticipated by the body and I would be more than surprised to see evidence to the contrary. Moreover, plenty of natural things cause cancer. cough*light*cough (UV radiation is a known mutagen which can lead to cancer). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Andy, you didn't read my points very clearly and just respouted what you said earlier. I'm not going to rehash them, but reread everything I wrote, then you can try to tell me I'm wrong. Point 4 is the only one you managed to address properly, even though JoshuaZ and ColinR make good points. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Age of Participants ==

The section on the participants being too young is just wrong. The study indicated that the subjects were ages 29 to 42 when they were enrolled in the study. Since this is longitudinal research (i.e. an over-time study) they have aged since then to 39 to 52. Given the sample size and the longitudinal component, it's unlikely that the sample itself is biased by age.

: Do you also think we could make meaningful claims denying causation of heart disease based on studying teenagers? How about claims deny that cigarette smoking causes cancer based on 20-year-olds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you're sufficiently educated to understand the distinction here. The study is longitudinal, meaning that it enrolled participants and then studied them over a period of time- in this case ten years. So, it did not base its conclusions on a pool of 29-42 year olds but, rather, on a pool of participants who were in that range of ages when the study began but are between 39 and 52 now. While I would certainly like to see the longitudinal component continued for another 10 years or more, the data already available can be used to analyze the question at hand. If abortion does cause breast cancer then we would expect to see a statistically higher rate of cases of breast cancer emerge over those ten years among those who have had abortions than among those who have not. What we see is that women who have had abortions are no more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant and that a completed pregnancy reduces the likelihood of breast cancer. Thus, pregnancy is a protective factor but abortion is not carcinogenic. I don't expect you to recognize that distinction but, at the very least, be honest about the ages of the study's subjects. Your snide comments about studying cancer from smoking in 20 year olds misrepresent my point entirely. A crossectional study wouldn't convince me, but a study that enrolled subjects between the ages of 14 and 26 (median age 20) and then studied them for ten years until they were ages 24 to 36? Well, that's certainly a good start. If smoking does cause cancer, we would expect to see higher cancer rates among smokers over that ten year period, wouldn't we?

:::The above comment is unsigned but correct. The authors specifically deal with the fact that the study is both ''ongoing'' and longitudinal. That is to say, it is continuing into those age groups at which breast cancer rates normally increase. It was specifically designed that way to address weaknesses in earlier studies (dealt with in the references to this study). We will have to await further reports to see if there is any more apparent correlation between abortion and breast cancer as that happens, but if there was a real link you would expect to be seeing some kind of effect as some of the women who were enrolled at the beginning of the study were as old as 42 in 1989, so would now be reaching the age where breast cancer would be more likely regardless of reproductive history. At the moment, no such connection is evident on the basis of this study.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:12, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Miscarriages ==

Why does the article claim that miscarriages would not increase cancer rates? I have trouble imagining any biological mechanism that would cause abortion to increase cancer rates that would not apply to miscarriages as well. Do we have any basis for this claim? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:33, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I stated that above in my analysis and have yet to get a response. I thought Andy would be willing to engage in a discussion about my findings after reading the study, but I'm not going to hold my breath. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Problems with this article==

I have just got hold of a copy of the study. This article says that 25% of the respondents showed 'confusion' over the term 'spontaneous abortion' and cites a page reference. I would like to know the exact text on which this term 'confusion' is based, as the article only cites a page reference which is not evident on my downloaded copy. The study says: "Of the 107 721 study participants who returned the 1993 questionnaire, 106 804 (99.1%) answered the question on spontaneous and induced abortion." That doesn't sound like confusion. Moreover, the cohort of women enrolled in this study were "116 671 female registered nurses 25 to 42 years of age", who would as a result of their nursing training definitely not have a problem distinguishing a spontaneous abortion from an induced abortion. There are other problems, but let's look at these first.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: I cannot cut and paste the passage on this computer, but in "Statistical Analysis" it shows that about 25% of respondents did not answer the question on induced abortion at all. Not yes, not no. But they did answer a question on "spontaneous abortion," with about 12% saying "yes" (which seems high). This is confusing. Most people call this "miscarriage", including nurses (few of whom would have any involvement with abortions). They would think of abortion when they see "spontaneous abortion." Confusion may well have been intended, as this mixes the data and will minimizes differences in outcome between those having had abortions and those who did not.

: Whether you agree or not, you can't dispute that 25% failed to answer the most important question in the survey.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::It certainly needs looking at, and I will paste the appropriate paragraph for people more accustomed than me to statistical analysis to comment on. However, let's address the issue of language here. The term 'spontaneous abortion' is the correct medical term for a miscarriage, and the term that was used in the questionnaire. The people answering the questionnaire were all registered nurses - ie had all been fully trained and qualified in nursing. All nurses spend part of their training in obstetrics and gynaecology, and would be familiar with that expression from their medical training. The argument that this highly trained medically qualified group of women would not recognise the term 'spontaneous abortion' as meaning 'miscarriage', especially when paired with the phrase 'induced abortion' as an opposite, is ludicrous. I think even non-medically-qualified people such as yourself would know the difference between the word 'spontaneous' meaning 'happened on its own' and 'induced' meaning 'somebody made it happen' in this context. The article needs changing to remove this rather silly sentence. Incidentally, 12% is not at all 'high' in terms of spontaneous abortion - if anything, it seems to me rather on the low side. A rate of 15-20% is usually quoted. Here is one medical reference that seems to bear that out, when it compares the rate of spontaneous abortion in normal and diabetic women. [http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/319/25/1617]

::The paragraph on statistical analysis reads as follows:

<blockquote>Our analyses included all women who answered the questions on abortion throughout follow-up between 1993 and 2003. In 1993, some women responded only to the question on induced abortion but omitted the spontaneous abortion question and vice versa. Of the 105 716 women included in this analysis, 28 392 did not answer the question on induced abortion but answered the question on spontaneous abortion; 13 652 of these women indicated that they had a spontaneous abortion. We assumed that the women who answered only half of the question did not answer the other question because of an oversight or because they felt that the question did not apply to them; we thus coded the missing response as "no induced abortion." Similarly, 22 768 women did not answer the question on spontaneous abortion in 1993; of these, 9167 answered that they had an induced abortion. We again coded the nonresponses as "no spontaneous abortion." Information on induced and spontaneous abortion was updated biennially; since a response option of "no" was not provided on subsequent questionnaires, a response of "no" was coded for either abortion if "yes" was not marked. We conducted sensitivity analyses of our approach. Results did not change when we excluded nonresponses to half of the 1993 question from the analyses or coded a missing response as "no" only if the other part of the question was answered with "yes." </blockquote>--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: The term "spontaneous abortion" is not recognized by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and does not even appear in the definition for [http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/miscarriage miscarriage]. While I am open-minded about this, so far it appears to be an effort to confuse the important distinction between abortion and miscarriage, and thereby confuse the very different health effects. Apparently it did confuse 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire in this study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:28, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::As one with multiple family members in the health and medicine field, who all know the term "spontaneous abortion" to mean miscarriage, despite not being in a ob-gyn specialty, I would be incredibly alarmed if that large of a percentage of nurses was not familiar with a standard medical term. In fact, I would safely say that one could conduct a poll at a local hospital and find that most, if not all, nurses know what "spontaneous abortion" means. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

If I may interject, the problem with studies like this is that they are used by partisans to justify their preconceived notions. It's like the ''New York Times'' claiming that women are more likely to be beaten by their husband than by anyone else; therefore, it's better for women to single than married. You have to dig into it to discover that they included the most violent category of live-in lover as a "husband" in the study, i.e., a man to whom the woman is not legally married (no marriage license).

So many other studies have similar problems. I first started learning about "statisticulation" like this by reading [[Darrell Huff]]'s classic on junk math: ''How to Lie With Statistics''. I got 760 on my math SAT, so I'm awfully hard to fool. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Net neutrality

2007-05-02T06:36:57Z

ColinR:

I'm pretty sure the correct term is net neutrality. Somewhat short for internet neutrality. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Net neutrality

2007-05-02T06:36:37Z

ColinR: New page: I'm pretty sure the correct term is net neutrality. ~~~~

I'm pretty sure the correct term is net neutrality. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:36, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2007-05-02T06:23:37Z

ColinR: Image Protection

'''Archive:''' http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:MountainDew
==Much Better==
Nice suit, fits real good. Do you like mine?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==?==

Cut what out exactly?

:I didn't add any of the names...I simply tidied up the page, like the table. [[User:Wattylfc|Wattylfc]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Big edits==
Thanks for the tip. Why the name change, MountainDew? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I see... I don't think your old discussion page redirects to your new one. Might want to put a redirect in there too so people don't get confused. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:56, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks!==

Thanks for blocking Iamwhoiam. I hate having to sit here and revert all that nonsense when I can be contributing to articles! --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 15:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACrocoite&diff=132272&oldid=132268 Thanks for the revert!] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 18:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Main Page ==
i did not write the comment on encyclopediac standards. I deleted the f word in the comment and you banned the user.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 01:16, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

--------------
I took a screen shot of those ban messages lol. I shall post them under the heading "Look what conservapeida bans you for". Indeed. I shall never run our of IPs dude so why ban me?
-----
will you not ban me if i just stay on talk pages?

Oh well ban me if you want i need to get a good night sleep school tomorow.

Have a nice night (or day depending on your geologial position)

== Lazarus ==

The new article [[Lazarus (Parable)]] is ready. But I am not able to make the disambig to ([[Lazarus]]).

Could you please do it?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:21, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you!

::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 16:54, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Good luck ==

with that paper. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

==vandals==

Here's my question - some people are creating articles that have offensive titles, but benign content. In these situations, I can delete the content, but the offensive title still exists on a site. I know the Sysops can delete these entirely, but is there anything I can do to erase that material? All I know to do is alert Sysops of the problem, but if nobody is available to delete it immediately, the articles can sit on the site and look bad for the site. Any ideas? --[[User:Thammersmith|Thammersmith]] 13:27, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:10, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Eagle... ==

I was too slack to make Eagle (it doesn't help if one is not a US citizen)... but does that make me a Scout for Life? [[User:Human|Human]] 02:39, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Question==
Question for you on the [[Conservapedia_talk:Request_for_Bureaucratship]] page. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind ... saw your reason. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:37, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Grandpa!==
Nananana Batman!

* 14:43, 24 April 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Cherry-picking" (too much speculation)

Thanks, MountainDew. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Quick catch there of "Andrew Nissian"! Thanks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:54, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Hey Dan==
I just wanted to ask why the Ted Stevens got reverted out of the "internet" article. The series of tubes statement is getting passed around a lot and I think people need to know where it came from.1

==New Age==
What was wrong with my edits to [[New Age]] that they had to be reverted? I didn't use the {stub} template on that one. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 13:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Budapest ==
I understood.--[[User:Kádár Tamás|Kádár Tamás]] 19:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== Beaver ? ==

''"Jeremiah, after seeing your edits to Biscuit and Beaver, I don't know why I haven't blocked you yet."''

I really don't know what you're talking about here; my [[Beaver]] article is '''entirely factual'''.

Lots of animals are classified as fish by the Catholic Church for Lenten dietary purposes; I thought that was an interesting beaver-related fact. I will get you a citation for it... Here [http://anvil.unl.edu/agnes/RecreatingLent.htm]

Had I wished to create a properly satirical article about ''Beavers'' it would surely have been rather different, just run the implications of the word through your mind...

(My biscuit article was entirely factual too, that sort of thing really does go on - again I can get you a reference if you like.) If you considered the material to be irrelevent or inappropriate, you were free to remove it. Defining it as vandalism (and blocking me for it) was a most unfair and disproportionate reaction in my opinion.

You've blocked me unjustly once, and now you're persecuting me about the content of a completely authentic article. Please stop doing this. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 20:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

==Just wondering==

What could I do to gain your trust? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, I can't say I agree with your assessment of the "edit war" at Fargo. The source was eventually added, btw, so I think I was right. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== NAMBLA ==

I certainly don't advocate for NAMBLA or the inclusion of the link, but for the sake of knowledge, NAMBLA has never explicitly supported man-boy love; they promote the legalization of such activity. Sick perverts... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mammon ==

I need an expert. I found this article, and it was a hostile rant, but not without some truth. I changed it to create a structure, but I don't know enough about the topic to feel comfortable adding a lot of content. Could you or someone else with knowledge help out?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
==[[User:JeffersonDarcy]]==
I endorse the block on JeffersonDarcy; I was going to do it myslelf and with a 12 hour block using [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Edit_Warring Edit Warring] as a Guideline. He can't say he wasn't warned, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Abuse&diff=prev&oldid=131570] and I want to make a record I support it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I screwed up, as a guideline this reads [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPAdmin1/Proposed_Block_Policy#Between_A_Sysop_and_a_non_Sysop 3 hours to one week] after the warning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal ==
No problem. Thanks for blocking him. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:45, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Any idea on how to tag this guy, Dan? I blocked some of his IP's I found via Traceroute, but he's still coming back. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
::This guy really needs to get a life. My annoyance with him is negated by my laughs over his pathetic hobby. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
No joke. Doesn't he have anything better to do on a Sunday? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:15, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Polap Srewdna ==

he didn't edit, why the block?

== You can talk to me directly==

Mate, I an't hiding anything feel free to ask me anything, anytime. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Take another look at my contributions the past few days since the reversal of my block. Take a look at what icewedge has contributed to the site in the last few days. Then ask whether a post by icewedge with a vague cryptic remark on my wikipedia talk page tips the scales relative to my contributions to put me under investigation. If you are curious about why I post that message on various talk pages, feel free to ask me directly. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No harm, no foul. I am only pressing this point because I am a member of this community, there is WAY to much of this SYSOPS vs. Editors war floating around. Lets work towards breaking down that wall. We are both humanbeings, whatever usergroup we are in shouldn't force use to talk past or around each other.

As to why I post that message, take a look at the users I post it too. They are not vandals, they are not people that are bad. They are people that have a political, scientific, and cultural view much like my own. They also share a common interest in wiki editing and have decided to try conservapedia out. Much like myself. This is a group of people with a lot in common. We like to talk to each other about a range of things. Its off-topic to CP and doesn't belong here. So when I see someone that I think would be interested in our group I invite them to contact me and we talk about it. Nothing nefarious there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:Toulouse would've told me if there was a conspiracy. I feel left out of there is one that he's hiding from me.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I was too quick to judge and I apologize again for it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Page Delete Request ==

Could you please delete a page for me. I'm an idiot and was working while watching tv. I accidentally mistyped the page I wanted as "Deviance Behaviour" instead of "Deviant Behaviour". I can't figure out how to undo it, so it must mean I can't. Thanks --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:01, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bohdan==
I see you're still having trouble with Icewedge. His post on Bohdan's userpage looks like they're working together. Do you think a block of Bohdan is necessary? [[User:Reaganomist|Reaganomist]] 14:18, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i have no involvment with him[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Simpsons are really liberal ==

Homer punched out George Bush and called president Bush Commander Kookoobananas. Not to mention that he supported Republican parodys Mr. Burns as governor and sideshow Bob. Somebody should show how liberal they really are!!!

::I think the Simpsons speaks for itself. If one can't pick up on the undertones by themselves, then they are an idiot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:08, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Leftists strike again. Are you going to accuse me of being "inbred" and living in a "trailer" for your next act?--[[User:ILikeCookies|ILikeCookies]] 17:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I wasn't making fun of you. I just think that going around telling people the Simpsons carries a liberal message is a redundant act. Most people who watch the Simpsons already know that it carries said message, and if they don't they're either burying their heads in the sand, or they really are just ignorant.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:14, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::The Simpsons are satire, especially early seasons. They make fun of everybody. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal attacks ==

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] must resign as a sysop before there is any chance of the vandal attacks ending. [[User:Davros|Davros]] 15:34, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:I think we have evidence icewedge is a sock of an active contributor; let me pull up the suspect list [[Conservapedia:Request for Bureaucratship#Oppose 5]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Let me get this straight: Expressing one's opinion in a democratic manner is grounds for suspicion? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 19:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I tell ya, what makes ''me'' suspicious is when a brand new user "knows their way around" CP, and almost instantly has a handful of UXBs set up. They should all be clumsy newbies, like I was! [[User:Human|Human]] 20:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::C'mon - you're still a newbie, Human. I mean, you haven't even been threatened with the 90/10 rule yet, have you? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:12, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Hahaha, well, actually, that's probably the one rule they could ''never'' bust me on. Have you checked my alleged contribs lately? The only thing I've been accused of is relying on myth-filled, distorted YEC science texts. Oh, and I was mean to someone who used very poor grammar once, but Ed (I think) deleted it and I fixed it and sorried for it. What ''does'' make me a n00b, I guess, is not knowing what all this fuss over evolution is about? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::I don't think anyone knows what it's about. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 20:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on the main page regarding getting more web traffic to Conservapedia ==

[[Getting Web Traffic to Conservapedia - Article Creation/Improvement Drive]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:29, 29 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Page deletions==

Thanks for the recent deletions of unwanted British articles, they seem to be spreading a vast web of lies over us, ill try and keep my eye out for them. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 13:34, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

what on earth is "unwanted" and who decides? I note that [[faggot]] has been deleted; http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/database/faggotswithoniongrav_3899.shtml is the first google hit for "faggots" (through google.co.uk). These things are easily verifiable without even consulting wikipedia. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Likewise the article on Chip Shops, the Ham Shank and Tommy Toley, all much loved British cultural treasures. Is it true that 90% of Americans have no passport and are not interested in anything outside the US of A? [[User:Tommy Toley|Tommy Toley]] 15:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, just like 78.9% of all statistics are made up on the spot.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Surely 77.4% is the approved Conservative figure. That 78.9% number looks very LIBERAL to me. GUARDS!!!!!! [[User:Tommy Toley|Tommy Toley]] 15:15, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

earlier you twice deleated the page [[faggot]]. can you delete it again, or is it now allowed?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Faggot ==

Whay on earth are you protecting Faggot? This is the kind of filth I protest at and you are protecting it? What kind of sysop are you? [[User:DrSnoddy|DrSnoddy]] 18:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It would appear that you have deleted and protected an article on Northern English cuisine. I fail to see how this could be controversial. Is this a case of Anglophobia or racsism? An Encyclopedia should cover all knowledge (that's what the word means). Perhaps you could expand your reasons for this. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Further (non-Conservopedia) research has led me to conclude that what we in the UK consider the main meanings of the word faggot are unfortunately almost completely unknown in the United States of America, where the word has merely the most unsavoury connotations (as I learned earlier this evening from the now deleted article). It is unfortunate but a fact that some words have been denuded of their wholesome content and effecively rendered unfit for polite usage. Faggot appears to be one such word, though I will continue to munch on and indeed cook with faggots as long as I breathe British air.

Such staple words of the English language should not be tainted in such a way. It was bad enough finding out that "gay" means something other than happy and that the tadger is no longer purely descriptive of the pocket billiards cue. Queen Elizabeth herself should issue a proclamation and prevent the noble langue d'Anglaise from further bowdlerising. [[User:William H Bhuna|William H Bhuna]] 18:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

William, I agree in principle, yet amcoming to recognize increasingly that Conservapedia is very much an American undertaking. I expect 'bowdlerise' also means something frightful in Colonial parlance.[[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 18:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Quite possibly, they are that far from the Queen's presence that surely all those hamburgers and MTV have tainted their minds. And DanH, I consider it rude for you to block me as I was merely correcting an unfortunate spelling of the town of Thirsk - home of a fine church and a finer brewery dating back over 300 years. When you have some history dating back farther than that, feel free to excersise your "right" to block me. Until then, make sure you salute the Queen before every meal and pray to the TRUE flag, the Union Jack. we exiled you rabble once and you raped the langue D'Anglais, you no longer support your true queen and you heathens never even invented cricket. Call that civilised? [[User:William H Bhuna II|William H Bhuna II]] 18:57, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Did I miss something? What unsavoury connotation could be construed from a faggot when it is a savoury dish - i.e. not sweet. Perhaps some ignorance has interfered with the Queen's or indeed King's English as faggots go back many hundreds of years. Any way please enlighten me on how it is unacceptable.[[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 18:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Strange as it may seem, Mr. Zuma (and it is a pleasure to communicate with you), the word faggot, though in the English language it calls to mind nothing more unwholesome than a meaty mouthful of beef, dripping with copious quantities of gravy, or a short firm stick of the burning kind, in the American demotic appears to refer to the unspeakable sect of Bulgars and their Carthigensian praxii. I hope my meaning is clear. [[User:DDWatkinsIII|DDWatkinsIII]] 19:01, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Question==
can you delete [[User:Sisterhix]] and the talk page? You blocked this user yesterday(blocked "Sisterhix (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (racism)) and the comments on the page are offensive to Jews(specifically the use of "kike").[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== From Conservapedian ==

Thanks for the welcome.--[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 01:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Image Protection ==

Why are you protecting all the images? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Harvard abortion study

2007-05-02T06:22:54Z

ColinR: /* Full study text */

:Rarely have a seen a more blatant example of [[junk science]]. You can't exclude people who die of breast cancer, from a study on breast cancer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry but wait just one cotton-picking horn-swaggling carn-sarnint (civility filter on) minute here, it doesnt say that the people who were excluded from followup as a result from death had died of breast cancer. I have a hard time believing they'd just ignore those deaths if they did occur, where on earth did you get tie impression that they did? Further, where the entry reads that it excludes women who got cancer afterwards, its excluding women who did and who didnt have abortions who got cancer afterwards because in those circumstances they're outside of the control of the experiment. You're misreporting out of context factoids that otherwise would show how stirctly they adhered to the scientific method in a pathetic attempt to show how the study ignored the most relevant data it was examining, as though the entire scientific community wouldnt have jumped on their necks already. No wonder why the CPedia front page gloats that "Only on Conservapedia" will use of the scientific method be deemed a sin.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 13:45, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::#It doesn't say that. It says ''Only on Conservapedia: this study debunked.''
::#Thanks for turning on your civility filter: I read you loud and clear.
::--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems that footnote 6 to the article argues that there is not a link between cancer and abortion.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)1048247

How about a link to the actual study so we can draw our own conclusions instead of reading Andy's slanted opinions? [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:08, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the NY Times's spin on it: [http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Abortion-Cancer.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:11, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:And here's an older NY Times story: [http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/FivePrecepts/AbortionBreastCancer.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I point out, that although I think I have a scientific background, that I have no idea what:
::"Among parous women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced a.."

actually means in real terms for women. If this is meant to be an informative article, than it fails because it makes the mistake of in attempting to be scientifically accurate, it actually presents scientific gobbledegook. The HR is presumably a hazard ratio. Does that mean that the increased risk represents a 1.58%, or 58% increase, and an increase on what? If the chance of developing breast cancer is 50%, then is the increase to 51.8% (hardly a significant increase) or to 76% (a pretty devastating significant). On the other hand if the risk is 0.05%, then and increase to 1.63% would be pretty significant, whereas one to 0.076% would not really be significant at all.

Please consider your audience. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:37, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::That part should probably be rewritten. Basically it means that the women in the study who had children (parous) were 58% more likely to get progesterone negative breast cancer if they ever had an abortion, and the same women were somewhat less likely to get progesterone positive breast cancer. If I did the math right there were 442 breast cancer cases among women who ever had an abortion. 59 (13%) were progresterone negative and 92 (21%) were progesterone positive. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:57, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::And according to [http://www.breastcancer.org] the prevalence among US women of breast cancer in general is about 1 in 8. Though to extrapolate the risk for PR- from the study (ie, what % of women who had abortions will get it by these figures) we'd need to know the rate of PR- breast cancer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: That makes more sense. However, the point still remains (and it's not just here, it's generally in reporting of medical research). Whenever anyone says there is an incresed risk of X, if X is very low probability, then the incresed risk is negligible. It only matters if the original risk is significant, and the increase is significant. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thanks, Murray, your comments are enlightening. Catwatcher, realize that I'm quoting from the study and it is the fault of the authors for downplaying that fact and not explaining it better. But as Murray shows, these are significant percentages, not the unimportant ones that you suggest might be the case.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:05, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::In this case, I'm not playing devils advocate or anything. I am genuinely confused by this article. When I read the article as it stands at the moment, I cannot actually understand what it is saying, and whether there is an increased or a decreased risk of cancer if a woman has had an abortion. Perhaps I should come back and readi it tomorrow when all the argy-bargy has finished!--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 14:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Here's a summary of the findings: breast cancer in general (including all types) was not more likely in women who reported ever having an abortion. Women who reported miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) were somewhat less likely to get breast cancer, though the effect was fairly small and did not quite meet the criterion for statistical significance. Still speaking of all types of breast cancer, the findings were the same regardless of whether the women ever gave birth, or whether an abortion occurred before or after they gave birth. The hormones estrogen and progesterone are implicated in some breast cancers, so they also looked at these specific cancer types. Reported abortion had no effect on the likelihood of getting estrogen receptor positive or estrogen receptor negative (ER+ or ER-) breast cancer. Progresterone receptor positive (PR+) breast cancer was not related to abortion in women who never had kids, and was a little less likely in women who had kids and reported an abortion compared with those with kids and no abortion (that effect also was not quite statistically significant). PR- negative cancer, though, was 58% more likely in women who reported having an abortion if they also had children at some point. About 80% of the women in the study had children. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:40, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Great analysis, but I do quibble with your statement about women who did not have any children. The ranges are so wide on the 95% CI that no conclusions can be drawn about them. The numbers are statistically insignificant, another sign of how the 100,000+ women in this study were simply too young for studying breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Andy - It was statistically not significant, though barely - p = .06 - if I understand correctly what you were referring to. The criterion for statistical significance is arbitrary and doesn't always reflect whether something is meaningful. On the other hand, statistical significance is dependent on the sample size, and with such a huge sample any effect that doesn't reach significance is bound to be small and likely not meaningful. So I can't argue with your quibble. I already have a copy of the article but I appreciate the offer. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:06, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Opinions in article ==

''this age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers.''

This statement is not a fact, however, it leads readers to believe it is. So I changed the sentenced and attributed the sentence to the person that first stated the sentence to make it a fact.

: The analogy is factual. Don't make your change a third time. It's inappropriate to insert someone's user id. into an entry anyway. The page history has that info.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Would like to start by pointing out one clear error for starters. At the start of the study, the women where between ages of 29-46 [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814] So, how can one get the avrage age of the womens in the study to be 42 now 14 years later when the yongest women in the study should be atleast 43? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 14:03, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: By the way, I have a copy of the paper and can email to a few '''open-minded''' readers here who want to analyze its or my claims further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I would be interested in reading the study to draw my own opinions ... my email link should work. no guarantees as to how quick i'll get to reading the study though. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:As no one seams to have an answer to the question i raised, im going to remove the mention about the average age of 42. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:07, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::I see my edit got reverted, but could i have some explanation why please, as it sounds kinda weird to claim the average age of the women in the reasearch to be 42 when youngest is 43. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:22, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I thought I had explained this here, but now I can't see it. So maybe what I wrote was not saved. Your point is a good one.

::: The study ended in 2003, when the youngest would have been 39. The average of 42 applied to those who had an abortion, which means they were on average 12 years old when Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide. It makes sense that the younger side of the population was more likely to have had an abortion, so an average of 42 is plausible.

::: Regardless, that is the age given by the study says and I've offered to email it to folks who want to analyze it. One took me up on my offer here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the clarification. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:38, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

They did a pretty poor job of reporting the age - presumably the 42 reported is at the end of the study, but if they clarified that anywhere I can't find it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: That's part of the spin, of course. If they reported that of 42 up front, then many informed readers would immediately react, "that's too young for most women to have developed breast cancer!" FYI, I found the age 42 in table 1. Murray, let me know if you need a copy. Your comments are good and I appreciate what you have to say.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:56, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

For the sake of comparison, the Reuters report on this (I haven't seen the original article so am not sure if this is accurate) said: "Michels' team noted that the studies that had seemed to show abortion caused breast cancer also mostly looked at younger women who had not reached menopause."--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::By the way Andy, thanks for your above comment. Much more data would probably be required for either of us to change our mind about the issue so that we agreed, but it's nice to discuss it calmly and rationally [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:19, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

== Full study text ==

Anyone wanting the study text, contact me. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 14:18, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, Colin could you please send me the full study text. --[[User:Staple|Staple]] 18:52, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see why it would have been necessary to include African American or Hispanic women: their reproductive organs do not differ from that of white women.
The only difference could thus come form lifestyle and environmental differences, but that was not what this study was about.

May I remind everyone here that an earlier study that seemed to show a correlation, was not ripped apart and scrutinized, in fact it was supported and cited from.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ethnicity is a valid issue. Reproductive organs don't differ but genetics sometimes do. Given that breast cancer has a genetic component, it could be different for different ethnic groups (I have no idea whether it is). [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

You would have a good point, if this was a study about inherited vulnerability to breast cancer.
The existence of a special gene carried by African American or Hispanic women only, that would somehow increase vulnerability to breast cancer, only after an abortion, and not even in the case of a completed pregnancy, seems highly unlikely to me, although I do not have a Ph.D in genetics.
In any case I do not believe this is sufficient to "debunk" this study.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I don't have a PhD in genetics either but that's not quite what I meant. It's possible that, for example, that the prevalence of genetic polymorphisms that are associated with breast cancer occur at different rates in different ethnic groups. At least some polymorphic genes are related to hormone function, and abortion alters hormone function relative to giving birth. So it's conceivable there could be a difference. Having said that, I wouldn't claim that this issue means the study is meaningless, and my reading of the research is that there is no link between abortion and breast cancer - my talk page has a list of studies that have found no link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The authors should have disclosed this weakness in their study. Breast cancer prevalence '''does''' have a strong ethnic component. Asians, for example, have breast cancer much less than whites. I bet a significant percentage (e.g., 5%) of the population in the Harvard study were Asian, but the authors concealed that.

: Murray, I looked at your list on your talk page that purports to present studies deny an abortion-breast cancer link. How many of those "studies" have you read? Zero? Less than 10%? Don't you think you should disclose that to the reader???? One that I recognize I have read (Lancet), and it is neither a study nor a denial that abortion increases breast cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:15, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Andy. I've read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions. I'm not sure what your issue with the Lancet article is. It is essentially a meta-analysis, which is a useful and novel contribution even if no new data were collected. For the sake of discussion I will post more details on each study when I have time - have already done some of that. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you claim that all 24 articles are "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link." I have read 1 out 24, and your claim is completely false with respect to that article (Lancet). The Lancet article is not a study and it does not deny that abortion increases breast cancer risk. Your claim may also be false for your other 23 articles, which you cannot say you've read.

::: Are you taking an Oprah Winfrey approach here, as in "so what" if the book was false? It's a good book anyway? Or so what if the Wikipedia editor is a fake, his edits were likable any way? Your statement about the Lancet study on your talk page is false in at least two independent ways, and you can't vouch for the other articles either. Enough said. I know I'd immediately correct such a falsehood, but I leave that up to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Andy, I have read the studies. I find it ironic that you falsely claim that I haven't, then dismiss them while proclaiming that you haven't either. If you'll bother to look at the list again, I've listed some details of the methods and the results of many of them, and I will add more as I have time. Perhaps you could clarify what exactly your issue is with the Lancet article. As I said above, it combined data from a number of previous studies and analyzed it. I will quote from it: "...neither the results from the individual studies nor their weighted average suggest any adverse effect on the subsequent risk of breast cancer for women with prospective records of having had one or more pregnancies that ended as an induced abortion, compared with women having no record of such a pregnancy. Furthermore, among the studies with prospective records of induced abortion, no significant variation in the results was found between those with objective and those with self reported information" p. 1010. If you want to claim that doesn't deny that abortion increases breast cancer go right ahead, but your logic is difficult to follow. I guess the collaborative attitude disappears when the data make you unhappy. You don't have to believe the data are accurate, but to deny them without bothering to look is ridiculous. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Murray, you have a falsehood on your talk page about the Lancet article, and you're apparently sticking to it. I'm not going to spend all night arguing with you any more than I would spend all night arguing with Oprah Winfrey about her defense of the false book, or Wikipedia's defense of the fake editor. Your quote from Lancet does '''not''' deny that abortion increases breast cancer. It compares the effect of an abortion to a mythical lack of pregnancy. It does [[not]] deny that the pregnant woman increases her risk of breast cancer by having the abortion. If you don't grasp the distinction, then please read, and reread, and reread, until you do. Also, Lancet was not a study.

::: Earlier you said you "read the methods and results sections of all of them at some point, if not the intros and discussions." Now you say something quite different, that you "read the studies." Which is it? Regardless, if you read the Lancet article and still insist on calling it a "study" that denies that abortion increases breast cancer, then your persistence in this falsehood would be enough cause for concern.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I guess that's the long version of saying that you're not going to bother to read or try to rebut the other studies, or indicate what your issue is with the Lancet article. Yes, I was careless with language in the last post. I read the methods and results of each. Obviously part of the issue here is that we have different definitions of risk. Here's the bottom line: a woman who has an abortion has the same risk of breast cancer as if she'd never been pregnant, or if she had a miscarriage, which is far more common than induced abortion. Pregnancy confers protection, but it does not follow that ending pregnancy increases a woman's risk, '''because her risk remains the same as it was before she got pregnant.''' It's pointless to discuss this further, but I would appreciate it if you would refrain from further implications that I'm lying. Others should read the studies themselves and draw their own conclusions. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 22:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: My opinion hasn't changed that the listing of the Lancet article on your talk page as an example of "Studies showing no abortion-breast cancer link" is false. Lancet is the only study in that list that I've read. Maybe some or all of the other articles listed are also unjustified. I see from your list that several of the other articles had very few subjects, and may thus be misleading in their claims.

: But I'm not going to spend any more time repeating myself here. I'll refer this to the Conservapedia panel and they will make their own decision. Due to other pressing issues they may not get to this for a while.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't expect your opinion to change Andy, though it would be nice if you would just once explain your reasoning regarding the Lancet article. I have no idea what you're referring to about the panel or what decision there is to be made. I haven't tried to edit what I see as bias out of this article or any others that are relevant. Are you asking the panel to rule on whether to delete my talk page? That's fine, I'm sure they will read each of the studies and that they have the competence to understand them. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I read the study and have a few comments about the study article ...
# ''"The research study excluded women who had abortions and then died from breast cancer!"'' This quote is misleading. The researchers censored women who had forms of carcinoma, which is cancer that can originate and spread elsewhere through the lymphnodes and is not breast specific. This makes sense because you wouldn't want to include cancer that originated in the lung in a breast cancer study.
# ''"The research study treated women who left the specific question about past induced abortions blank, perhaps due to embarrassment, as though they did not have an abortion"'' They addressed this and said they also tried ommitting those who missed questions and did not see a change in results.
# ''"The research report concealed how almost none of the subjects of the study were African American or Hispanic"'' while not covered specifically in the article, my assumption would be that with so many other variables included (age, body mass index, family history, birth control usage, etc) you would want to limit the study to a more similiar group of people. Keeping them of the same/similar race would keep potential conditions that vary by race out.
# ''"Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage"."'' I don't see the point here, how could there be a difference between inducing and miscarriage? In both cases the fetus is lost prematurely. Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't see where you got that 25% from.
And I also want to point out that of the 105,716 participants: 2916 got breast cancer, and only 535 of them reported having abortions. If abortions did contribute to the risk of breast cancer you would expect that number to be way higher. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I was wondering if I should keep waiting for a response to my take on the study ... [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:26, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: Point 1: No, the follow-up excluded women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.

: Point 2: Omitting those who left that question blank is unhelpful. What needs to be disclosed, and wasn't, is what happens when those who left the question blank are counted as having had an abortion. Also, see my reply below to Britinme.

: Point 3: The results are meaningless if the ethnic groups having the highest rates of abortion are omitted. At a minimum, this flaw should be disclosed to the reader and the public, rather than misleading them to think the conclusions apply to all Americans.

: Point 4: There is a huge difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. A miscarriage is natural, and an abortion is not. No one would expect the health consequences to be the same, and they aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:19, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
:: I don't have the time to comment on the other points, but as to point 4, many forms of abortions are biologically very similar to how miscarriages occur. I would a) be very interested in hearing in more detail why you think one would have fewer health consequences (other than the vague issue of being "natural") and b) would be curious if you can point to any evidence that the female body's post-miscarriage reactions are different in any substantial way than those following an abortion(especially in regard to hormone levels and other blood work that could plausibly alter breast cancer rates). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::: They aren't similar at all. A miscarriage is something the body causes, anticipates, and heals. An abortion is an unnatural, violent interference with the course of nature, shocking the body in a way it does not expect or want. Almost nothing natural causes cancer, while many unnatural things do cause cancer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Um, not all (if any) miscarriages are anticipated by the body and I would be more than surprised to see evidence to the contrary. Moreover, plenty of natural things cause cancer. cough*light*cough (UV radiation is a known mutagen which can lead to cancer). [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 02:22, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Age of Participants ==

The section on the participants being too young is just wrong. The study indicated that the subjects were ages 29 to 42 when they were enrolled in the study. Since this is longitudinal research (i.e. an over-time study) they have aged since then to 39 to 52. Given the sample size and the longitudinal component, it's unlikely that the sample itself is biased by age.

: Do you also think we could make meaningful claims denying causation of heart disease based on studying teenagers? How about claims deny that cigarette smoking causes cancer based on 20-year-olds?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:41, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Mr. Schlafly, you're sufficiently educated to understand the distinction here. The study is longitudinal, meaning that it enrolled participants and then studied them over a period of time- in this case ten years. So, it did not base its conclusions on a pool of 29-42 year olds but, rather, on a pool of participants who were in that range of ages when the study began but are between 39 and 52 now. While I would certainly like to see the longitudinal component continued for another 10 years or more, the data already available can be used to analyze the question at hand. If abortion does cause breast cancer then we would expect to see a statistically higher rate of cases of breast cancer emerge over those ten years among those who have had abortions than among those who have not. What we see is that women who have had abortions are no more likely to develop breast cancer than women who have never been pregnant and that a completed pregnancy reduces the likelihood of breast cancer. Thus, pregnancy is a protective factor but abortion is not carcinogenic. I don't expect you to recognize that distinction but, at the very least, be honest about the ages of the study's subjects. Your snide comments about studying cancer from smoking in 20 year olds misrepresent my point entirely. A crossectional study wouldn't convince me, but a study that enrolled subjects between the ages of 14 and 26 (median age 20) and then studied them for ten years until they were ages 24 to 36? Well, that's certainly a good start. If smoking does cause cancer, we would expect to see higher cancer rates among smokers over that ten year period, wouldn't we?

== Miscarriages ==

Why does the article claim that miscarriages would not increase cancer rates? I have trouble imagining any biological mechanism that would cause abortion to increase cancer rates that would not apply to miscarriages as well. Do we have any basis for this claim? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:33, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I stated that above in my analysis and have yet to get a response. I thought Andy would be willing to engage in a discussion about my findings after reading the study, but I'm not going to hold my breath. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:57, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

==Problems with this article==

I have just got hold of a copy of the study. This article says that 25% of the respondents showed 'confusion' over the term 'spontaneous abortion' and cites a page reference. I would like to know the exact text on which this term 'confusion' is based, as the article only cites a page reference which is not evident on my downloaded copy. The study says: "Of the 107 721 study participants who returned the 1993 questionnaire, 106 804 (99.1%) answered the question on spontaneous and induced abortion." That doesn't sound like confusion. Moreover, the cohort of women enrolled in this study were "116 671 female registered nurses 25 to 42 years of age", who would as a result of their nursing training definitely not have a problem distinguishing a spontaneous abortion from an induced abortion. There are other problems, but let's look at these first.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:43, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: I cannot cut and paste the passage on this computer, but in "Statistical Analysis" it shows that about 25% of respondents did not answer the question on induced abortion at all. Not yes, not no. But they did answer a question on "spontaneous abortion," with about 12% saying "yes" (which seems high). This is confusing. Most people call this "miscarriage", including nurses (few of whom would have any involvement with abortions). They would think of abortion when they see "spontaneous abortion." Confusion may well have been intended, as this mixes the data and will minimizes differences in outcome between those having had abortions and those who did not.

: Whether you agree or not, you can't dispute that 25% failed to answer the most important question in the survey.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Cthulhu

2007-05-01T19:53:57Z

ColinR: Reverted edits by The Black Angel of Death (Talk); changed back to last version by DrSandstone

[[Image:Cthulu.png|thumb|right]]
'''Cthulhu''' (pronounced "Khlûl'hloo" or "Kathooloo") (Other spellings: Kutulu, Ktulu, Cthulu, Kthulhut, Thu Thu, Tulu) is a fictional Pre-Judeo-Christian deity/demon variously described as a "sleeping" or "dreaming" in the works of [[H. P. Lovecraft]]. Cthulhu sleeps in the sunken city of R'lyeh and when the stars are right, will reawaken ushering in the destruction of humanity.

As of 2005 some correlation has been proposed<ref>Kepler and Yard ''Lovecraft and Christianity: a hidden message?'' (2005)</ref> between the symbology of the mythos and both the Christian devil [[Satan]] and [[creation science]] in Christianity: in the stories the being Cthulhu corrupts creatures from God and turns their worship inward, on their own bodies, with horrific results<ref>H. P. Lovecraft ''The Shadow over Innsmouth'' (1941)</ref>; furthermore, many of the tales in the mythos feature the triumph of the supernatural over established science<ref>H. P. Lovecraft ''At the Mountains of Madness'', ''The Dream Quest for Unknown Kadath'' (various).</ref>. It should be recognized, however, that Lovecraft was an avowed atheist and that the symbology is likely coincidental.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fantasy]]

Succubus

2007-05-01T19:52:47Z

ColinR: Reverted edits by The Black Angel of Death (Talk); changed back to last version by Mtur

A type of [[demon]] related to Medieval folklore, particularly in the British Isles. A succubus would assume the form of a woman in order to seduce and have intercourse with unwary men. An [[Incubus]] is the male equivalent, which would seduce women for the purposes of intercourse. In some folk tales, incubi and succubi are able to change gender in order to prey on either victim. In both cases, it is with evil or malicious intent - such as spreading disease, unwanted pregnancy and feelings of sorrow in the victim. Tales of succubi have been used to teach young adults about the dangers of premarital intercourse although some are cautionary tales about giving one's love too freely.

[[Category:Mythology]]

Atheism

2007-05-01T19:52:44Z

ColinR: Reverted edits by The Black Angel of Death (Talk); changed back to last version by Bohdan

'''Atheism''' defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (one of the foremost philosophy reference works) is the denial of the existence of any God. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Definitions of "atheism" used in debate ==

There are ''active'' and ''passive'' senses in which the term "atheism" can be used - because of the nature of the term the active sense is the original and by far the most common. However, in debate the sense in which atheism is defined may shift from "the active denial of the existence of God", to merely "the passive lack of belief in the existence of God". This can be seen as an attempt to shift the burden of proof from the atheist to disprove the existence of God, on to the theist to prove the existence of God.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref> Recently a number of atheists have attempted to redefine the meaning of atheism as a lack of belief in the existence of God because they wish to shift the burden of proof in regards to the question of the existence of God. <ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref>

These ''active'' and ''passive'' senses are ''logically'' equivalent because they both equate to '''"God exists = False"''', but they are ''pragmatically'' distinct, because denying the existence of ''X'', and ''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of, are different psychological states. The argument for them being different psychological states is that if "''X'' being amongst the things one has never considered the existence of" were psychologically equivalent to the denial of the existence of ''X'', then one would have to hold an infinite number of beliefs in the non-existence of all logically possible ''X''s, but since the human mind is finite, this cannot be the case.

Nevertheless, this distinction is a rhetorical device only, and does not succeed in shifting any burden of proof. This is because not only is the issue of burden of proof still, strictly-speaking, independent of the issue of the sense in which the term "atheism" is used, but it is impossible even to identify oneself as an atheist in the ''passive'' sense described above. Once one has considered the question of the existence of God (which one must do in order to describe ''oneself'' as an atheist), to be an atheist one must actively deny the existence of God. This is because, presuming agreement on the definition of God, a so-called passive atheist would be unable to describe the following sentence as either true or false: "God exists." To answer "True" is theism, to answer "False" is active atheism, and to answer "Neither" is not atheism at all, but agnosticism, and the option of ignoring the question is lost by entering the debate at all.

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]