Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Bill Maher

2009-11-17T18:58:16Z

DanPugachev: There is no evidence that he supports some of these viewpoints, and gossip on a messageboard is not encyclopedic.

'''Bill Maher''' is arguably a [[Socialism|socialist]], certainly an [[agnostic]] and [[liberal]] comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'', which airs on the HBO television network. Maher formerly hosted [[Politically Incorrect]] on Comedy Central.

== Television shows & Other Media ==

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." <ref>[http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]</ref>

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
{{cquote|But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.}}

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

== Political claims and statements ==
While he is a [[libertarian]] on issues of social freedom, his opinions on the economy and the role of the state are based on [[populist]] [[liberalism]], occasionally venturing into [[socialism]]. He supports strong government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, campaign finance restrictions, restricting carbon emissions and creating other environmental protections, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, strict gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, and socialized medicine. He supported [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but not in 2004. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas. He supports personal choice on moral issues, including abortion, the use of drugs, gambling, and prostitution.

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html]</ref> Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.<ref>[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]</ref>

Somewhat anachronistically, he voted for [[Bob Dole]] in the 1996 Presidential election, calling him an "old-fashioned" Republican. He is also a personal friend of [[Ann Coulter]], despite (or perhaps because of) their widely divergent views. She was a frequent guest on ''Politically Incorrect.''

==Victory: Begins at Home==
Not surprisingly, the [[New York Times]] raved about his 2003 overtly anti-Catholic, one-man broadway show "Victory: Begins at Home".<ref> [http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/295903/Bill-Maher-Victory-Begins-at-Home/overview NYTIMES review]</ref><ref> http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=2003&id=80</ref>

==Religulous==
In 2008, Maher starred in a spoof [[documentary]] movie called ''[[Religulous]]''. It was directed by [[Larry Charles]] (who also directed ''[[Borat]]''). The film derives its name from a combination of the words "religion" and "ridiculous"<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/14/lkl.01.html CNN LARRY KING LIVE, Interview With Bill Maher, aired August 14, 2007 - 21:00ET]</ref>. Originally destined for an [[Easter]] 2008 release, the film had a limited theater-release in [[October]] 2008 after being first shown at the [[Toronto]] International Film Festival in early [[September]] 2008<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo IMDb: Release dates for ''Religulous'']</ref>.

The film criticizes [[religion]], particularly Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam. To Maher, radical Islam and its hate-filled terrorism has no difference from regular religious worship, as he blends pictures of the attack on the World Trade center with a benediction by the Pope and Jews praying at the Wailing Wall at the very end of the movie.

In the film, Maher explains his stance on religion as he interviews the faithful from mainstream religions as well as from many lesser known [[cult]]s.

Some individuals featured in the film<ref>[http://www.tiff07.ca/filmsandschedules/filmdetails.aspx?ID=707111610451386 RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles]</ref> include:
*[[Judaism|Hasidic]] scholars
*[[Jesus]] impersonators
*[[Messianic_Judaism|Messianic Jews]]
*[[Islam|Muslims]]
*[[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Polygamy|Polygamists]]
*[[Satanism|Satanists]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationists]]
*Recreational users of [[cannabis]]
*A US senator who believes in the "[[Rapture]]"
*[[Raelism|Rael]]

===Box office performance===
The film made $3.5 million in its opening weekend<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=religulous.htm</ref> in a limited release, surpassing expectations. It never did break out though after that and appears to be heading for a total gross of about $13 million.

===Controversy===
The already controversial film gained increased notoriety on the morning of 30th September 2008 when Bill Maher made an appearance on the View to promote ''Religulous''. Maher frivolously suggested during the interview that anyone who hears the "voice" of God should check themselves in to a psychiatric hospital.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/sherri-shepherd-bill-mahe_n_130581.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/ ''Religulous''] at IMDB.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Maher, Bill}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]

{{Liberalism}}

Bill Maher

2009-11-17T18:43:26Z

DanPugachev:

'''Bill Maher''' is arguably a [[Socialism|socialist]], certainly an [[agnostic]] and [[liberal]] comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'', which airs on the HBO television network. Maher formerly hosted [[Politically Incorrect]] on Comedy Central.

== Television shows & Other Media ==

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying "We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." <ref>[http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]</ref>

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
{{cquote|But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.}}

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

== Political claims and statements ==
Despite bizarre claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, socialized medicine, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.<ref>[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html]</ref> Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.<ref>[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]</ref>

Somewhat anachronistically, he voted for [[Bob Dole]] in the 1996 Presidential election, calling him an "old-fashioned" Republican. He is also a personal friend of [[Ann Coulter]], despite (or perhaps because of) their widely divergent views. She was a frequent guest on ''Politically Incorrect.''

==Victory: Begins at Home==
Not surprisingly, the [[New York Times]] raved about his 2003 overtly anti-Catholic, one-man broadway show "Victory: Begins at Home".<ref> [http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/295903/Bill-Maher-Victory-Begins-at-Home/overview NYTIMES review]</ref><ref> http://www.catholicleague.org/annualreport.php?year=2003&id=80</ref>

==Religulous==
In 2008, Maher starred in a spoof [[documentary]] movie called ''[[Religulous]]''. It was directed by [[Larry Charles]] (who also directed ''[[Borat]]''). The film derives its name from a combination of the words "religion" and "ridiculous"<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0708/14/lkl.01.html CNN LARRY KING LIVE, Interview With Bill Maher, aired August 14, 2007 - 21:00ET]</ref>. Originally destined for an [[Easter]] 2008 release, the film had a limited theater-release in [[October]] 2008 after being first shown at the [[Toronto]] International Film Festival in early [[September]] 2008<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/releaseinfo IMDb: Release dates for ''Religulous'']</ref>.

The film criticizes [[religion]], particularly Christianity and to a lesser extent Judaism and Islam. To Maher, radical Islam and its hate-filled terrorism has no difference from regular religious worship, as he blends pictures of the attack on the World Trade center with a benediction by the Pope and Jews praying at the Wailing Wall at the very end of the movie.

In the film, Maher explains his stance on religion as he interviews the faithful from mainstream religions as well as from many lesser known [[cult]]s.

Some individuals featured in the film<ref>[http://www.tiff07.ca/filmsandschedules/filmdetails.aspx?ID=707111610451386 RELIGULOUS: A Conversation with Bill Maher and Larry Charles]</ref> include:
*[[Judaism|Hasidic]] scholars
*[[Jesus]] impersonators
*[[Messianic_Judaism|Messianic Jews]]
*[[Islam|Muslims]]
*[[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Polygamy|Polygamists]]
*[[Satanism|Satanists]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism|Creationists]]
*Recreational users of [[cannabis]]
*A US senator who believes in the "[[Rapture]]"
*[[Raelism|Rael]]

===Box office performance===
The film made $3.5 million in its opening weekend<ref>http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=religulous.htm</ref> in a limited release, surpassing expectations. It never did break out though after that and appears to be heading for a total gross of about $13 million.

===Controversy===
The already controversial film gained increased notoriety on the morning of 30th September 2008 when Bill Maher made an appearance on the View to promote ''Religulous''. Maher frivolously suggested during the interview that anyone who hears the "voice" of God should check themselves in to a psychiatric hospital.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/sherri-shepherd-bill-mahe_n_130581.html</ref>

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0815241/ ''Religulous''] at IMDB.com

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Maher, Bill}}
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Comedians]]
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]

{{Liberalism}}

Minoan Civilization

2009-11-11T19:33:37Z

DanPugachev:

The ancient [[civilization]] of [[Crete]] which existed from 2600 to 1450 BC. The Minoans were skilled engineers for their time, and the Minoan palace at Knossos (one of several palaces on Crete) is known to have had a sewer system ,a feature that was unknown to european architecture until then. They prospered as merchants of tin, needed to make the useful metal bronze in the days before iron working, importing it from Spain and possibly even Britain.

The Minoan civilization suddenly dissapeared after the catastrophic eruption of Mt.Thera (now known as Thera island). The island of Crete, the home of the Minoans, was eventually invaded by [[Mycenaeans]] who rebuilt several of the destroyed palaces, namelt Knossos.

===The Minotaur===
Around 2600 BC a civilization arose on the island of [[Crete]] called the Minoan civilization. They were one of the most powerful Mediterranean nations of their time and have found their place in various legends. Among these is that of the [[Minotaur]].

According to myth, [[Minos II]], the king of Crete, boasted that he could obtain anything through [[prayer]]. To prove this he prayed to [[Neptune]] for a [[bull]] that he might sacrifice. Although the bull appeared, it was so beautiful that Minos declined to sacrifice it. In his anger Neptune drove the bull wild and caused the kings wife to fall in love with the bull. So in love with it she asked Daedalus to construct a hollow cow, covered in [[leather]], in which she could hide and consume her love for the bull. Although [[Hercules]] got rid of the bull, it left behind its offspring: a wild half-bull/half-man called the Minotaur which terrorized the country until the king’s architect, Dædalus, trapped it in a huge [[labyrinth]].
At this time [[Athens]] was under the rule of Crete. Each year king Minos required that Athenians send a number young people to feed to the beast. Finally [[Theseus]], a hero from Athens, resolved to let himself be thrown to the Minotaur that he might attempt to kill it. He entered the labyrinth, and trailing a thread behind him so that wouldn't get lost, he proceeded to search out the Minotaur. In the ensuing fight Theseus was victorious and Athens was freed.

The Minoan civilization was a fairly advanced people group the remains of whose cities can still be seen today.

[[Category:anthropology]]

Talk:Minoan Civilization

2009-11-11T19:31:35Z

DanPugachev: Created page with 'Athens was never ruled by the Minoans. Athens would have payed tribute, but the city was never occupied or administered by Crete.'

Athens was never ruled by the Minoans. Athens would have payed tribute, but the city was never occupied or administered by Crete.

Anion

2009-11-11T04:45:58Z

DanPugachev:

An '''anion''' (pronounced with 3 syllables, as in "'''an''' eye on") is a negatively charged [[ion]]<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>. It is the opposite of a [[cation]] and will react with one to form an ionic [[compound]]. It is so named because, during [[electrolysis]], it migrates toward the [[anode]]. Anions consist of [[electronegative|electronegativity]] nonmetals, especially oxygen, sulfur, and the [[halogens]], that have gained additional electrons by chemical reaction, often in combination with other elements. The further to the right side of the periodic table an element is, the greater the chance that it will form an anion. In a sodium chloride solution the Na+ ions are cations and the Cl- ions are anions.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Anion

2009-11-10T23:15:31Z

DanPugachev: added some information about what elements form anions

An '''anion''' (pronounced with 3 syllables, as in "'''an''' eye on") is a negatively charged [[ion]]<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Chemistry''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1998</ref>. It is the opposite of a [[cation]]. It is so named because, during [[electrolysis]], it migrates toward the [[anode]]. Anions consist of [[electronegative|electronegativity]] nonmetals, especially oxygen, sulfur, and the [[halogens]], often in combination with other elements. In a sodium chloride solution the Na+ ions are cations and the Cl- ions are anions.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Chemistry]]

Talk:Young Earth Creationism

2009-11-10T23:02:16Z

DanPugachev: /* Laws of Thermodynamics */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
[[Talk:Young Earth Creationism/Archive_1|Archive 1]]

== 15. Too few Supernovas ==

This section actually discusses comets, not supernovas. I thought I should point this out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:52, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I made the correction. I have been doing some work on this article in the last two days and I saw your comment on this page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:54, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Glad I could help. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone dewikilink the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe rewrite ==

I've just rewritten much of the Starlight and the Age of the Universe section. My main reasons for doing this are that it gave too much importance to Setterfield's idea, which has been abandoned by most leading creationists, and it totally failed to mention Russell Humphreys' idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 13 September 2007 (EDT) :Mr. Rayment, I do like your edits and want to know if what you say is true but it must be cited to be shown true. I deleted the sentence saying that most creationist or creationist scientists have abandoned Setterfield's idea. If you can cite that sentence, please include it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:28, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:: See my edit comment. Reference should be forthcoming. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Links ==

Many of the links given here are out of date, or have no bearing on the topic in question. I'll make a complete list at some point so you can update them all once the topic is unlocked.{{unsigned|Longitude}}
:An administrator can update them whilst it is locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:22, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== Craters ==

Has YEC ever confronted the issue of meteor craters such as the one off the Yucatan peninsula?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: What's the "issue"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:30, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry I thought the issue would be clear. The fact that there is a huge crater (which is the gulf of mexico) in the earth. Surely if this had happened within 6000 - 10000 years ago there would A)Been record of it and B)Caused massive and, perhaps due to the size of the crater, irreversible damage to the growth and propagation of Mankind. Hence the issue is how does YEC explain craters (very old craters I might add)which dot the earth?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: That such craters are "very old" is only according to your belief system. And the Chixulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula was not formed by a meteor ([http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1757/] see under "Signs of desperation").
: If impact craters were formed late in Noah's Flood, or even in the next few hundred years before mankind spread out around the planet, there would have been nobody around those places to witness them.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:03, 21 January 2008 (EST)

You say that "Very old" is my belief yet Noahs flood is also your belief and I am not going to take one link from Creationweb about the crater that the Gulf of Mexico as a final truth. Are you suggesting that all the craters that dot the earth (aside from the Tunguska Blast of 1908)all took place in a short few hundred years during the flood and soon after?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, Noah's flood is my belief, and I don't expect you to take any source as the final truth on anything. (However, the reference I linked to was specifically for the information that it wasn't an impact crater, and for that they were quoting non-creationists.) Some creationists do believe that the Flood was accompanied by a meteor bombardment, so yes, I'm ''suggesting'' (not claiming) that ''most'' of the impact craters on the Earth may have been formed in that time period.

Have any of you YECers ever looked here?
http://www.answersincreation.org/young_earth_creationist_argument_index.htm
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Yes, I've looked at the site before. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:25, 22 January 2008 (EST)

And what did you make of that site?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: I was not impressed. I can't recall specifics now, but probably they put the ideas of secular scientists above the Word of God, which a Christian should not do. On the Dinosaur discussion page you will have seen my reply about their "rebuttal" of the soft tissue issue. Their "rebuttal" was little more than a few throwaway lines, and severely lacking compared to the CMI rebuttal I pointed you to, which properly addresses the claims and clearly points out their errors. But whether that's typical of their other arguments or not I don't recall at the moment. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Well, anyway, aside from the website, on the issue of craters - it seems like quite a throwaway comment to simply say some creationists believe there was a meteor bombardment around the time of the flood. Such a bombardment would have devastated the planet and, if correct about meteors bombarding during this period (say over a period of 200yrs) why would the rates of erosion be so different? Some craters, such as the one in Arizona, are very clear while others have more or less faded away and can only be seen with satillite imagery.
[[User:MetcalfeM|Metcalfe]]
: First, a specific answer. The amount of erosion would depend not just on the passage of time, but the climate in the area. A dry environment, for example, would not have the same erosion as a wet one.
: Now, a more general answer. Neither creationists nor evolutionists claim to have the answers to every last problem. Just because a creationist does not have an answer to a specific problem does not mean that the creationary view is refuted. And keep in mind that creationists get almost nothing in research money (and most of what they do get is from private sources) compared to the billions that evolutionists get. So it's not surprising that creationists have not done much research in some areas. What is surprising, in my opinion, is that they've managed to provide good explanations for so much, given the severe lack of both funds and researchers. Perhaps that's because with a creationary view things fall into place better? Anyway, the point is that if someone tries to question how a bit of evidence fits with the creationary view, I will give the best answer I can, but in some cases that may be no more than a ''possible'' explanation, rather than a researched one. The point being that if there is a ''possible'' explanation, it undermines the argument (whether explicitly put or not) that 'creationists can't answer such-and-such'. I accept that in this case the answer I've provided is pretty speculative, but that doesn't mean that it's impossible. What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 23 January 2008 (EST)

It is very debatable to suggest that a creationist view fits better. What seems more likely here?
That the earth has sustained meteor hits throughout its history (much as you would see from craters on the moon and, more recntly, the comet that hit Jupiter) or that meteor craters are the result of a short bombardment that failed to kill everything on the planet (or on the boat as your case may be)? Sure things erode faster dependent on weather etc but for a large crater to be almost oblierated by wind etc in less than 6000yrs is a large stretch of the imagination.
And they (creationists) havent managed to provide "good explanations" at all. If they were "good explanations" why is not recognized by the scientific community? Oh right, I forget...its because they are all part of the liberal atheistic conspiracy. And where you have said "What I find ''very'' often is anti-creationists rejecting creationist explanations because the creationist explanation doesn't fit into the anti-creationists' theory." can be said the same about you, my friend, and ASchlflay and his junta as if it does not fit with your theories (god, YEC or whatever) it is branded as liberal, evolutionist or down right lies.
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]]
: Of course many others won't agree that the creationist view fits better, but I think it does, and I offered that as a reason that creationists have been able to explain so much with so little in the way of resources. But it was a general statement, not one specific to craters. I acknowledge that the evolutionary view does seem to fit the evidence better ''in a few cases'', but ''overall'', I believe that the creationary view fits the evidence better.
: I won't disagree with your second paragraph that, on the strength of what we have discussed so far, your explanation seems more reasonable (which doesn't mean that it's right, of course), but I will take issue with your last point about 6,000 years of erosion, as this is something based on your worldview, not on the observable evidence. That is, no-one has ever ''observed'' how much erosion can occur in 6000 years. Rather, you look at how much erosion has occurred in something that, ''according to your views'', is 6000 years old, and use that as your yardstick. But your yardstick then depends on your views, so your yardstick cannot be used to support your views, as that would be a circular argument. More on that below.
: Why are creationist explanations not accepted by the scientific community? Well, for starters, you are incorrect to say that it isn't. That is, you are talking as though the "scientific community" is of one mind on this issue. But it's not—creationary scientists are ''part of'' the "scientific community". Now if you are asking why creationist views are not accepted by ''the majority of'' the scientific community, then my answer is not conspiracy (i.e. a deliberate attempt to suppress something that they know to be true), but to point out that (a) there's been times in the past where the majority, even the vast majority, were not right, so that creationists are not in the majority doesn't really mean much, and certainly doesn't mean that their views are wrong, and (b) this is not a dispassionate academic exercise, but something that goes to the core of a person's religious beliefs (including atheistic beliefs), so the atheists are going to disagree and fight this ''without forming a conspiracy to do so''. Add to that peer pressure, suppression of the creationist view so that most don't get to learn of it (how are the "good explanations" of the creationists going to convince other scientists if they never get to read them?), etc.
: Regarding rejecting explanations, I may not have made myself clear enough. To use an example to illustrate, evolutionists believe that there was no global flood and that civilisation has been around for many thousands of years. YECs believe that there was a global flood 4,350 years ago, and that all civilisations that we have evidence for are younger than that. They also believe that the dating methods used by evolutionists ''are based on the evolutionary view being true'' and are therefore in error.
: Now, there's (at least) two ways to refute an argument. One is to produce evidence against it. Another is to show that the argument is logically or internally inconsistent. So you might refute the creationist belief about the age of civilisations by producing a reliable ancient document listing a succession of rulers and how long they ruled, the total of which exceeds the 4,350 years that the creationists believe. Or you might point out (if it was true) that creationists believe that the pyramids, being so massive, survived the flood whilst also believing that the rock the pyramids were built of were formed during the flood. This would show that their arguments are not consistent with themselves.
: But what many evolutionists often do is neither of those approaches, but to reject the creationist argument that civilisation is no more than 4,350 years old by quoting ''evolutionary dates'' for the civilisations being older. So they will say, "the flood could not have happened 4,350 years ago, as Egypt has been around for 5,000 years". As someone else coined the phrase, ''your theory doesn't fit with my theory so your theory must be wrong''. The point being, arguing that creationists are wrong ''because it doesn't fit within the evolutionary viewpoint'' is an invalid argument. That's what I was saying anti-creationists do very often, and I reject that I do the same the other way. And this is what your 6,000 years of erosion argument was doing.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:32, 24 January 2008 (EST)

== YEC is not all of Creationism ==

I would ask that someone go through this article and seperate YEC from Creationism. YEC is a branch of Creationism, but not the whole. In fact, I would say that YEC is a fringe group and thus all statements which go roughly "This is how Creationists argue [something]" should be replaced with "This is how Young Earth Creationists/Young Earthers/YECs argue [something]" before you give people the wrong impression. It is bad enough that Wikipedia does this, does conservapedia has to do it too? {{unsigned|Xenuite}}
:You are correct that YEC is a "branch" of creationism, not the whole, but I disagree that it's just a fringe group, and I'd also argue that ''many'' people use "creationism" and its variations as synonymous with YEC.
:Of the main creationist organisations (CMI, ICR, CRS, AiG, Hovind's organisation, the North West Creationist Group (if I recall the name correctly; I'm in a hurry) and RTB, all except the last are YEC. YEC is also the historical (pre-Hutton/Darwin/etc.) view.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 15:11, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:::I concur with Xenuite and move for such a change. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:48, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Error in age ==

Whoever wrote the Age of the Universe section needs to edit it again. I don't know what the correct numbers are for the estimated ages of the universe and the Earth, but I know that if the Earth is 4,500 billion years old, the universe isn't 14,000 million years old. Actually, if I remember correctly, the Earth is estimated to about 4.5 billion years, and I have no idea what the corresponding age of universe would be [14 billion years?]. Someone take a look. {{unsigned|Foxtrotuniform}}
: I took it you meant the 'Contrasted with evolution' section. "4,500 billion" should have been "4,500 '''m'''illion", which for most people is 4.5 billion. "14,000 million" (14 billion) was correct. Thanks for picking that up. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:41, 22 February 2008 (EST)

==Google==
6th rank good, Wikipedia still 1st {{unsigned|Jeanluc}}

== Overreaction...? ==

Conservative, I think you overreacted. I was just editing what I thought I could without changing the direction of the article, and I don't think you needed to reprotect it. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 21:06, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

== races ==

Question - If there was a recent creation followed by a flood that killed all but Noahs family, how did races evolve? Like Asians, Africans etc etc? I will post this on Flood talk also.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
: See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:24, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

The real question is if all humans are decsended from only Adam and Eve, and all mutations are just a negative distruction of DNA and are the breaking down/ destruction of the perfection ( good and very good)created by god, why are there more than 4 allels at a given loci in the human genome? More than 4 positive phenotypes exist for many traits, some must be contigent on a single gene (not combinations of genes). From where did this genetic diversity arrive?
- on a side note last I heard "race" is not a very scientific term, as no given gene or combination of genes can define a race.As in there is not a single trait you can define a race by. Ex. not ALL negroid people have very dark skin, some actually very light (I'm trying really hard not to sound racist here. We can all agree any discussion of race is a touchy subject, best avoided...And thankfully science says races probabaly don't even exist)
-Damien Rivers

: Not all mutations destroy information. Many are neutral. That is, they can change genes to a different form that has no new function. Further, there may be some genes that are ''designed'' to vary, such as genes that control the production of antibodies. They wouldn't change so that they do something different than that, but they may change so that they can recognise different infections.
: As far as races are concerned, you are quite correct. Did you actually read the link?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:58, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

As for neutral mutations, of course they exist . Neutral mutations include silent mutations where the DNA sequence is changed but the amino acid sequence remains unaltered. Equivelent mutations, where the DNA sequence changes and the amino acid sequence changes as well, where the functional domains and the protein folding remains intact- allowing normal functioning of the protein ( ie. the changed protien conserves size, charge etc. of the amino acid substituted). However this is not what I was refering to. I was asking how creation science accounts for populations with more than four different DNA sequences at a sigle genetic loci, which result in more than four different amino acid sequences. I was specifically refering to cases where these protiens result in different, but positive phenotypes. The maximum number of these different phenotypes (coded from a single gene like discribed above) should not exceed 4 if the entire population descended from two diploid parents (as would be the case for animals from Noahs ark). This is of course only if you assume no mutations result in new positive allels(ie mutations that alter proteins to have a new '''positive''' function).
-Damien

: I think that we are talking about "neutral" and "positive" in different ways, and that is my fault for not being clear what I was referring to. I was using the term in the sense of genetic ''[[information]]''. So when I said that many mutations are neutral, I was meaning that they neither destroy nor create ''information''. Think of a cake recipe. The recipe contains ''information'' on how to make a cake, including a list of ingredients and instructions on how to put them together. Now suppose that someone wants a copy of your cake recipe, so you type out a new copy for them. But in making this copy, you accidentally change some of the information. There are various changes that could hypothetically occur. Let's just pretend that one of these changes adds information on how to ice the case (your recipe didn't include icing). This would be an ''information-gaining'' change (mutation). Of course this could never occur accidentally, yet this is what evolution proposes. Alternatively, let's suppose that you accidentally skipped a bit of the recipe, and left something out. This is a very real possibility, and is what we actually observe in living things: mutations ''destroying'' information.
: But there are a couple of other possible changes/mutations. Perhaps where the recipe called for 2.5 cups of water, you typed it as 2.8 cups. In this case, the change is not neutral the way you used the term (it is a real change), but there is no ''new information'', nor a ''loss of information''. It's merely ''changed'' information. It may even be a beneficial one if the original recipe was a bit dry. The remaining possibility is that the recipe calls for cherry flavouring, and you mistype that as sherry flavouring. So it's not a quantity that has changed in in this case, but a different ingredient. But it's only going to change the flavour; it's not new information like adding the instructions for icing is.
: So your allele change is more like one of the last two. It's not new information, just a change in information, so is neutral as far as information gain or loss is concerned.
: And to forestall what the next question might be, if your mistyped "flour" as "sherry", this is are more substantial change, but the result is that you no longer have a cake, just a mess instead. In this case you have actually ''destroyed'' the cake recipe, so this counts as a ''loss of information''.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Before I comment further, I would like to clarify then. Is it correct to assume nobody disputes that there can be changes to protiens where an "old" protein takes on a new function? (ex.1 a kinase protien mutates and gains the ability to phosphorylate a different type of sugar, or gains the ability to also dephosphorylate the sugar as well)(ex.2 only protiens that give rise to thick coarse hair and thin hair exist. Now the DNA that gives rise to thick hair is mutated to give rise to curly hair.. now all three can be found in the population)-- clearly 2 is a hypothetical ( I know nothing about human genetics for all I know these types Of traits are controlled by 12 genes)It's just an example trying to illustrate the type of change I'm referring to.

If these types of changes can occur,Then over time they would accumulate. At some point these simple changes would then cause groups to no longer be able to interbreed, gain the ability to metabolize new food sources, change skin and hair colour, change size etc. Eventually generations later(many many many later) would not resemble what the original parents started out as. I understand that creation science says baramin sometimes can no longer interbreed due to "degeneration of information" or some similar term, but at what point would it no longer be the same type of creature.

I've heard people say that this doesn't happen, but it works at the molecular level (changes like paragraph one of my response), we see it every day in labs. If you accept (again I suppose I don't know that you do) that changes like in paragraph 1 of my response do occur, why would they then not simply accumulate until the offspring of thousands and thousands of years later don't resemble the original generation.
At what point are these changes stopped from occuring/ accumulating? by what are they stopped? and at what point is this evolution?

In regards to new information I guess that depends on your definition of "new" as well. gene duplications occur all the time. These then can have their original functions altered ( see example 1 and 2) now the organism in question has 2 genes with two similar functions that are different and useful, and that can be passes on to subsequent generations. This second gene can be altered further or duplicated itself in subsequent generatons,(of course influenced by it's enviroment; it will not change or loose the only copy of something required in a given environment. Eventually the parent protein no longer resembles the desendent from thousands of years later.

Gene timming is also huge using the same protien in different ways. A promoter ( or operator)..or the proteins that interact with the promoter (or operator) can be altered. Now the gene is "ON" at a new time.At the molecular level situations like this are observed in a labs. Using your cake analogy this would be like taking melted chocolate that goes in with flour for flavor, instead on the cake.Not a "new" information exactly but a new use that would be a different product.Timing body plan genes (hox genes???) can create drastically different looking creatures.( duplicating body plan genes also has a large effect I believe?)

If these change accumulate,the creature looks and acts differently in a new niche, wouldn't it be correct to say this is evolution.

We may not have observed enough accumulated changes to be what you would accept as a complete new species , (It is very unlikely that we could have yet, due to time constraints ie. how long we have been observing) however, we have observed many of the molecular mechanisms. They wouldn't just stop working because over time it could/would lead to evolution.

As for where the first genetic information ever came from.. that is origins of life not evolution, and though there are theories, this is much less experimentally sound science at the moment.( not to mention a whole other discussion)
-Damien

: Whether or not an old protein can take on a new function depends on whether or not that new function is more or less specific. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2107/ A-I Milano mutation—evidence for evolution?] for an example that I think addresses the sort of situation you are describing.
: Gene duplication is not the creation of ''new'' information, but the duplication of ''existing'' information. Whether or not mutations to the duplicate gene count as new information is a separate question.
: Creationists accept that new species can arise. What they dispute is that such involves new information.
: Whether or not the origin of life is evolution depends on your [[definition of evolution]].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:16, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

==mention other creation theories==
I think this article needs to mention to other many of the other Christian theories of creation such as theistic evolution. The article lacks some scope and should direct readers to alternative theories as well. This would greatly increase the validity of the argument.{{unsigned|MikeJonez}}
:I've added some links to the 'see also' section. Thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Zircon Dating ==

I added the following to the "Responses to criticisms" section today:
* ''Zircon crystals found in Jack Hills (located in Western Australia) have been found to have such a ratio of uranium to lead that their formation must have occurred at least 4.404 billion years ago. While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly), the radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating sometimes is because we know that uranium does chemically bond to the zircon crystals while lead does not. The only way the lead in the crystals found in Jack Hills could exist in such quantities as observed in the crystals is that it is the result of the atomic decay of the uranium in the crystals. Many defenders of Young Earth Creationism refute radiometric dating by saying that we don't know how the Earth was thousands of years ago, so we don't know that the decay rates of these atoms are "constant". This assertion is refuted by the fact that the only way to affect the probability that an atom will decay at any given instant is to introduce a strong source of gamma radiation (which is not found on or near Earth naturally). ''
: No sufficient rebuke of this yet exists. Click "edit" at the top of this section to add one.
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&action=edit&oldid=442207 (can still be found here)]

Since there was no simple "Criticisms of YEC" section in this article as there perhaps should be, I had to add it in the "Responses to criticisms" section.

The user Philip J. Rayment deleted this, saying "Revert; as this article is featured on the front page, I'd rather remove then discuss than discuss first what appears to be gobbledygook. Please explain what it means before reinserting."

Well, I thought I made this pretty easy to understand already, but to summarize, these crystals provide a means to robustly date the minimum age of the Earth (heh. robustly date). Anyway, seeing as though the only way this article "supports" the YEC conjecture is to refute various scientific ways of dating the earth and the universe, I thought a criticism that should be responded to was the results of the experiments run on these crystals.

I would appreciate it if you would further explain how any of this is "gobbledygook", Philip J. Rayment. I think it has more of a place here than discussions of psuedoscience such as "decay of the speed of light".

Since I have explained what my addition means as Philip J. Rayment requested, and if there are no immediate objections, I will be replacing this in about an hour, but not before letting the director of the physics laboratories at Florida Atlantic University proof read it if he is in his office. I am a physics undergraduate student at FAU, in case anyone was wondering. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:43, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::I'll even add a source this time from the peer-reviewed research journal Nature: [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf]--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Well, I found a case of unpaired parentheses in my addition. Maybe that was the gobbledygook you were referring to. I fixed it above. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 16:57, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: Actually, I only reverted the third of three edits you made, that being the addition of "While some processes of radiometric dating can be innacurate (as in the case of the RATE project, where researchers conducted an experiment to show that the experiment they were conducting could be conducted incorrectly", and it was that that I was referring to as gobbledygook. But this was because, for some reason, I missed the previous two edits. They also contain what appears to be gobbledygook, with this: "The radiometric dating of these crystals is much more accurate than radiometric dating is...". The whole paragraph you added is out of place (criticism rather than response to criticism, and much larger and more detailed and technical than the other points in that section), so I will delete the lot for now. However, I will look at it again when I get a chance (within the next 18 hours) and see what I can make of it. Consider this an objection to reinserting the material! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:10, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::Yeah, I saw that too, and I fixed it above. The only thing I was saying is that this zircon dating is not subject to the common criticisms of radiometric dating, due to the chemical properties of zircon and lead. I explained why I added it to this particular section already. There is no "criticism" section. You have to be technical when discussing this stuff. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:48, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::: When I wrote my previous message, I was in a hurry and probably didn't explain myself as well as I could have. When I said "But this was because...", I was referring to why I only reverted the last of your three edits. My comments about that last edit being gobbledygook stands. I now see (as you said) that you had fixed the other bit of gobbledygook, but this bit remains.
::: Another problem with your edit that I didn't mention was the unencyclopedic last line.
::: Also, your unreasonable bias is showing in referring to the speed of light research as "pseudo-science". There's three possible reasons for this, none of which are acceptable.
:::# You are counting any creationist research as "pseudo-science". This is bigoted nonsense, and will not be accepted here (although I do note that you only said that in a talk-page comment, not in the article).
:::# You are counting any scientific research that turns out to be wrong as "pseudo-science". This is contrary to the meaning of the word. Pseudo-science refers to things that superficially appear to be "scientific", but are not conducted according to the scientific method. It does not refer to research done in a proper scientific manner that happens to turn out to be wrong, as was the case here.
:::# You are under the mistaken impression that this research was not conducted in a scientific manner. If that is the basis of your comment, you are simply wrong.
::: However, to get to the argument itself, I will first point out that creationists have pointed out that there are ''several'' assumptions involved in radiometric dating which, if wrong, invalidate the methods. ''One'' of these assumptions is that we know the starting amount of the daughter element (lead in this case). Your argument seems to be that the dating of these particular crystals avoids having to make ''that'' assumption, because we can be certain that there was zero lead to start with. Assuming you are correct on that, it still leaves the ''other'' assumptions unresolved, so although this case may be a ''bit'' more accurate than other cases, it is by no means yet a reliable date.
::: Furthermore, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/811 this article] points out other problems with the dating of these crystals.
::: The fact that the edit was put in the 'responses to criticisms' section was not, by itself, reason to delete it. If that was the only problem, I would simply have moved it to a new section. But as explained above, that was only one of several problems with the edit.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago. As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific). I'll tell you what I told them about this article. First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable." This is irrelevant. I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers. This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is). The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates. I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one. But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used. He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down. I've measured the speed of light myself. Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value. I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate. I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means. This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science. But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article. I think that is irresponsible. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Okay, I've had a reply the enquiry I made about the reference to the U-Th dating in the article I linked to. My e-mail was passed on to the article's author himself, so the reply is from him.{{QuoteBox|...the two Uranium isotopes produced a concordant plot. That is, although the two isotopes decay at different rates, they each produced a set of points that fell approximately on the same line and thus gave what appeared to be the same age estimate. But the U/Thorium comparison was wildly discordant; the two sets of points did not fall on the same line. This indicates that the zircon had not been behaving as a closed system (a basic requirement for the age calculation to be valid). Either thorium or uranium had leached in or out, or both, or all together, in who-knows-what amounts. This makes the zircon undatable according to the U/Th concordia method. If the zircon is undatable by one method because it is not a closed system, then it is logically undateable by the other method for the same reason...}}
::::: If I understand it correctly, thorium is part of the uranium decay chain, so thorium should have been present also, but wasn't.
::::: I think the point about the range of ages is that, if you get a range of ages, why assume that they are all correct? If they all agreed, it would be claimed that this agreement supports the accuracy of the dates. But if they don't all agree, it just means that they are of different ages. Heads you win tails I lose.
::::: No, you aren't ''forced'' to agree with one of my three choices. That simply seemed to cover all possibilities. I originally had two, but then realised that there was a third possibility. If you want to claim something different, you can do so. But you've gone for number two, without explaining why my dismissal of it was invalid.
::::: What is so incorrect about proposing a change in the speed of light based on actual measurements? You seem to be arguing that measurements are irrelevant when they don't fit the theory. ''That'' is pseudoscience.
::::: I think your point about lead entering the crystals has been answered: The U-Th method indicates that they were ''not'' closed systems, so ''something'' is wrong, whether it's lead entering, uranium leaving, or something else.
::::: I've heard many, many arguments against creationism, and these zircon crystals don't figure very high on that list of arguments, if I've ever heard them at all. So it seems unlikely that they are the "strongest evidence" against YEC, and with the article I linked to (and the supporting information), it's by no means clear that this evidence is any better than any other.
::::: As for a section on criticisms, that depends on whether there are any criticisms that don't have answers (i.e. something that doesn't fit under the ''Responses to criticisms'' section).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:38, 6 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, let's look at the 207Pb/206Pb dating done on those crystals. Those two isotopes of lead are chemically very similar. Any process by which one isotope of the lead can enter or leave the crystals likely acts on the other isotope, so it's not surprising that the 207Pb/206Pb dating on one sample produced results with 97% concordance. I still don't see why the discordinant results of the U-Th dating affects other methods of dating the crystals. From what I understand in the ''Nature'' article [http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~valley/zircons/Wilde2001Nature.pdf], the point of the U-Th dating was not to find the total age of the crystals, but to determine the conditions under which the crystals formed and existed. The age of the crystals is actually determined by the 207Pb/206Pb dating. You've encouraged me to study this article further, and now I understand it a lot better than I did before we started this. The point of this zircon project wasn't even to determine the age of the Earth (though it does serve that purpose well), but to examine the conditions that existed billions of years ago. What we are debating is actually a relatively simple part of a much more complex project. Actually, according to an article on the usgs.gov website I just found, dating of a meteorite from Arizona may show that the earth is even older, at 4.54 billion years, but I'll have to look into this before I understand it enough to start arguing about it.

::::I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.

::::It is not wrong to suggest that the speed of light is different than the currently accepted value (but this would actually change the definition of the meter, while the value for the speed of light would stay the same), I'm just saying that it's a bit silly for someone to conclude that the speed of light is changing based on the fact that the measurements of the speed of light have changed over the centuries. It shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct those measurements. Measuring the speed of light requires either modern knowledge of electromagnetism or mirrors rotating very fast that are very far apart and extremely precise knowledge of how fast those mirrors are spinning and how far apart they are. It also requires measuring the displacement of a beam of light which can be unimaginably difficult using anything but a laser and large-radius spherical mirrors (neither of which existed hundreds of years ago). --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:06, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::[[User:MichaelK/Measuring_c|Here]] is a copy of the the report I made describing the method I used. Maybe you'll understand why I feel this way after reading it?--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 14:38, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
::::: There are various factors that can affect a radiometric date determination, including the parent material leaching in or out and the daughter material leaching in or out. In a "closed system", this cannot occur, but if it does, then it indicates an "open system". Of course, this is not an either/or situation; you might have a nearly-closed system, or a system that is closed to some chemicals but open to others, for example. If I understand it correctly, the fact that the U-Th dating produced a "wildly discordant" date shows that these zircons comprised an ''open system'', where material was able to leach in or out. As such, the U-Pb dates cannot be considered to be reliable.
::::: "''I never said that this is all an argument against creationism or intelligent design. I just said that these are valid arguments against the Earth being less than 8,000 years old.''": You actually said, "The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of ''Young Earth Creationism''" (my emphasis).
::::: It's an interesting point that the speed of light is effectively defined in such a way that it ''cannot'' change. And the other way of seeing it is not that the ''definition'' of the metre would change, but that actual length of the metre would change! Hmmm, that's an interesting concept!
::::: I don't see how it shows a lack of understanding of the methods used to conduct the measurements. You appear to have a misunderstanding, as you seem to be saying that there's only one way of measuring it, which was not available until relatively recent times. But the speed of light has been measured in various ways for 400 years. Granted, the latest method is probably the most accurate, but that doesn't mean that it is the only method that can be used.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:11, 11 May 2008 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying this evidence is evidence against general Creationism, just Young Earth Creationism. You're right, there are other methods of measuring the speed of light. A more accurate method than what I used exists, but uses modern theories and machinery. It should be very clear to anyone claiming to be smart enough to understand such advanced concepts as radiation propagation that it is very likely that the results of the speed of light measurements conducted centuries ago are the result of major errors due to the reality of light's velocity.

::::As the ''Nature'' article states, the minimum age of those crystals was determined using two isotopes of the same element. Don't you think that it's likely that even if some process existed (other than radioactive decay) that caused lead to enter or leave those crystals would act on both isotopes of the lead?

::::I think it is very likely that these crystals have existed on Earth for more than 4 billion years, and I think anyone must acknowledge that there is at least a possibility that this is true. If you don't think this discussion belongs on the Young Earth Creationism article (though I believe it is responsible to include evidence that refutes YEC if such evidence is valid), then would you object to its addition in the [[Age of the Earth]] article? That arcticle includes a brief mention of some potassium-argon dating experiment, but it doesn't explain the process at all.

::::About the speed of light, it could actually double and increase and decrease and we wouldn't observe any change in anything whatsoever. Everything is based on the speed of light- the meter is just directly based on it. You can't really even say that the speed of light is increasing or decreasing unless every other physical constant is somehow held in place while this is happening.

::::This is actually what I love about physics. There are some things we can be sure of because they are theoretical. The speed of light is DEFINED to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second. The speed of light is one of three of the most important constants we use when discussing radiation, the other two being the magnetic constant ''μ''0, which is measured in kg ms-2A-2 and the electric constant and the electric constant ''ε''0, which is defined in A2s4kg-1m-3. These three constants rely on each other for the definitions of their units. I've measured ''c'' and ''μ''0 myself, which made measuring ''ε''0 unnecessary.

::::Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that while the guy who proposed that the speed of light was once much faster in the past is technically correct (and incorrect at the same time), he doesn't really understand what this means. It would be the same thing as me giving a lecture on quantum mechanics. I don't understand that yet so I have no business acting like I do. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 17:54, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I see the distinction you were making, but "creationism" is largely (although not totally) synonymous with "young Earth creationism" anyway.
::::: I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your comment about speed-of-light measurements centuries ago. The fact is that the speed was measured, and although it was not measured with the same precision as today, it was done pretty accurately and without the modern methods.
::::: Regarding the lead leaching in or out, the quote I provided about referred to the uranium and/or thorium leaching in or out. I think your point is that the two isotopes of lead would leach equally, but because they are produced at different rates, there would be different amounts, so they would not likely leach in proportion so that they two isotopes agree. I'm not sure that this is valid; why wouldn't they leach in proportion? But regardless, what if the uranium leached in or out?
::::: I don't see why anyone should acknowledge the "possibility" that the ages are true when there is much good evidence that is consistent with the world being much younger.
::::: Instead of this article or the Age of the Earth article, how about the [[radiometric dating]] article?
::::: I think you're way off the beam with the speed of light matter (no pun intended). Light is not ''defined'' to be 299,792,458 metres per second, but ''measured'' to be that. Certainly, defining the metre in terms of the speed of light confuses that, but it is also ''measured'' in feet per second. If the speed of light doubles, and therefore the metre doubles, does the foot double also? And if all that is so, does the distance between the Sun and the Earth double? And would we not notice the sudden lurch? And why bother measuring the speed of light if it is ''defined'' to be a particular speed? It's like measuring a one-foot ruler with another one-foot ruler, not to see if the first ruler was accurately made, but to see how long one foot is.
::::: So I disagree that the bloke who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past didn't really understand what that means.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

:::::: On October 21, 1983 the meter was defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.[http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, if the speed of light were to double then the length of the foot would double. I can tell you that the speed of light had doubled since yesterday and there would be no way for you to prove me right or wrong. If you have access to an extensive library, can you please check out Physics for Scientists and Engineers: Mechanics, Oscillations and Waves, Thermodynamics, by W. H. Freeman, and read the sections on the theory of relativity, and pay attention to the explanition of the speed of light being the same in all frames of reference? I could explain to you how the equations would cancel each other out, and I will if you make me, but it takes a long time to enter in the equations into this wiki markup. Better yet, you should take two semesters of physics at any public university in the United States (preceded by a complete course in calculus). I already explained that everything depends on the speed of light. Can you please analyze the dimensions of the constants I gave you before? The electric and magnetic constants are just to examples. Look at it this way: suppose you're in a building and someone somehow shrinks you along with the building you are in. Well that sounds silly, so I guess I will have to break out the maths. But not tonight. I think I see why the consistancy of the speed of light scares you so much: the fact that an object that is more than 8,000 light years away is observable means that the universe must be older than 8,000 years. Unfortunately, I can't use this as an argument yet because the physics of Hubble shift are currently beyond my understanding, as are the physics of cosmic expansion. So I don't really know how the distances of very far away objects are measured. To be honest, I am not sure that these things are really that far away because I don't understand this, which refutes the common accusation that I have "faith" in science.

::::The sample taken for measurement was taken form an area of the crystal that was free of cracks. Let me make sure we're both clear on this: the total minimum age of the crystals was determined using 207Pb/206Pb dating. The U/Pb dating I was talking about earlier was from another project published in ''Nature''. You're saying that because the two isotopes of the lead existed in different ratios over time, one isotope may have leached out (meaning more of one isotope left the crystal) at one time.

::::Even if the lead was somehow leaving the crystals (and there is no evidence that it is), there is no natural process which removes 207Pb at a faster rate than the 206Pb. Even if a lead-removing process started recently, it would still remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged. Also, if the lead-removing process started and ended a long time ago, it would also remove the two isotopes at the same rate leaving the ratio unchanged.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 21:01, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: I understand what you are saying about the shrinking room, but I have trouble accepting that the sizes of everything will change just because the speed of light changes. That is, I have trouble accepting that the sizes of things are ''dependent on'' the speed of light. And the speed of light ''does'' change when travelling through different substances (''c'' refers to the speed of light ''in a vacuum''). By the way, I don't plan on taking a course on physics at any university just to have this discussion with you, let alone one on the other side of the world!
::::: As for objects being more than 8,000 light years away, see [[starlight problem]]. If I recall correctly, far-away objects are measured by their red-shift, and/or by the apparent brightness of the brightest objects in galaxies.
::::: I think with the dating issue you are getting confused with my response to what I believed you were saying and what I was saying. Let's try this explanation:
::::: Radiometric dating involves measuring the ratio of parent and daughter elements, and calculating from that ratio how long it has been decaying. Uranium decays through a number of steps to eventually become lead, so one way of dating objects is to measure the relative amounts of uranium and lead. However, one of the intermediate elements is thorium, so you can also measure the relative amounts of uranium and thorium. Therefore if the relative amounts of two isotopes of uranium, thorium, and two isotopes of lead are measured, then one should be able to determine the date from three calculations: two from the different uranium-lead ratios and one from the uranium-thorium ratio. You are arguing that because the two uranium-lead figures agree, the date is likely to be accurate. But the link I provided argues that because the thorium figure was zero, this indicates that there is a problem with the sample (perhaps leaching) that makes the uranium-lead date unreliable.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:06, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::But what about the 207Pb/206Pb dating? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 18:01, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
::::It seems that Setterfield's idea has been abandoned even by most Young Earth Creationists. It's discussed earlier in this page. --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 10:27, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Seriously? ==

People honestly believe this stuff? This article makes me embarassed to be a conservative. All this article does is make us conservatives look like dunces. I can understand trying to hold on to past beliefs but there has to be a point where you have to admit you were wrong. {{unsigned|Psl04001}}
: So when are you going to admit that you are wrong? You've not actually pointed out ''anything'' wrong in the article. Your comment has nothing of substance. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

This is where it gets to be most the obvious, the young earth creationists aren't about science at all, they just want to twist on everything to make it look like there is a doubt in the commonly acceptet data, and push their own belifs onto the reader as to if there were any kind evindence tied to it.

The fact is, they read the Bible, then they pretend like they are scientists and say that science is wrong but can't really show the evidence for it.
Face it, that just the same way this whole place is built up, no neutriality and only pure oppinions, based on nothing else than their own predeterimined, pre-tought viewpoints --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 17:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT).
: Despite your comments, you've done nothing to substantiate your claims, and are clearly wrong. The ''fact'' is that creationary scientists do not ''pretend'' like they are scientsts; they actually ''are'' scientist. And they don't say that ''science'' is wrong, but that ''evolutionary hypotheses'' are wrong. And yes, they ''can'' show evidence. As for pushing their own beliefs onto people as if there was evidence "tied to it", that is just what evolutionists do. By the way, your "own predetermined, pre-tought(sic) viewpoints" wouldn't be evolutionay ones, would they? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

:Like allways, you guys can't change.
:You just keep ramble out a load of shit which is supposed make people tired of answering you all the same obvious answers.
:Do you have any idea how tiny that percent is which consists of scientists who officially confirm their doubt in the present model we use???
:Though..... I shouldn't be a hypocrate, as I don't really belive so much in them myself ;)....
:The problem is, scientists can't belive in anything else than what their instruments is showing them, and that's excactly what they are showing, and when you creationist's try to distort the evidence only because of your allready determinded oppinion, based on your belifs, you are in reality denying the details of what god has created.
:We both know that there is more between earth and heaven than just the physical, right?
:But the thing that destroys every attempt of locating the real truth by combining both science and religion is that religion is based on dogmas, and NOT creativness. No intelligence or indipendence.
:Science is about discovering what the world is really made of, but to this day they can only use their intelligence on the created which is of a physical orgin.
:But beliving that science and religion can be united in the way the young earth creationists are trying to do it is only shown to continiuly contradicting itself. They don't accept what we have learned because it contradicts with their belifs, then of course it must be false......
:
:A real science of both the physical and the spirutal that co-exists will be able to fit with both ways of thinking without coming into conflict with them, and the young earth creationists obviously isn't there yet.--[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:00, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

== other belifes ==

I'ma christian and a creationist i do not want to be put in with these people.

The bible cleary has the age of the earth at around 12,000 ,The universe could be mush older than that if God didint make the earth first since .He could have made other galaxys and star systems etc. before the milky way or solar system.

== Reactions to Criticism, Really? ==

Ok, this section is really bad. Is this really what an encyclopedia entry would look like?
A few examples:

'''"The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See Creation week for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history."'''

How would anyone know what the authors clearly intended? Maybe say , that this is what YEC supporters believe. But don't state is as fact.

'''"Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus."'''

If we want this project to be taken seriously at all,words like "bogus" should probably not be used.

Also in general where did all of this come from? Can anyone verify that these are the most widely used criticism and that those are their responses.
[[User:KingAdrock|KingAdrock]] 19:12, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

: Are you simply trying to be difficult, or am I supposed to realise that your intention is to improve this article? If the latter, how am I to tell that if it's not possible for a reader to "know what the author (you in this case) intended"?
:Also, you obviously didn't read (or take in) the link to [[creation week]], in which the ''author's intentions'' are claimed to be knowable by "professor[s] of Hebrew or Old Testament at .. world-class universit[ies]". So if these experts believe that the intention is discernable (and ''clearly'' discernable, given their apparent unanimity), why should we take any notice of ''your'' opinion? Furthermore, Barr (like the other experts, for the most part) is not a YEC.
: What is wrong with "bogus"? What would you suggest instead?
: From decades of personal experience, I can say that these are common criticisms (it doesn't say that they are necessarily "the most widely use criticisms") and that the responses listed are, on the whole, the ones normally given by leading creationists.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:10, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

There are definitely problems with the term "bogus". The Reactions to Criticism section states the evolutionist argument against YEC as questionable the poses the YEC rebuttal as indisputable fact. Both views are, in fact, opinion. The word bogus would only properly be used to describe something that has been absolutely proven to be false. - [[User:highbrow|highbrow]]
: "absolutely" proven? How about proven beyond reasonable doubt? And how do you know that it hasn't been proven to be false? The evolutionist arguments ''are'' questionable, and I note that you have not disputed any of the YEC rebuttals. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:34, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of Rotskep's edits ==

I've reverted [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&diff=554031&oldid=547552 these] edits of Rotskep for the following reasons.
* Rotskep may have been trying to insert some arguments for evolution to discredit creation, in which case the argument should be removed because it is incorrect.
* Alternatively, Rotskep was trying to provide an example of the silly arguments that evolutionists sometimes use, in which case it would only serve to confuse the flow of the text in having two different arguments in the one point, and refutations would need to be provided for both.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:41, 10 November 2008 (EST)

:Are you assuming A Priory that all arguments for Evolution are incorrect? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:01, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== Mutually exclusive ==

Claim one is essentially ''evolutionists cannot gather enough solid testable evidence to point us in one direction or another as to what happened long before we started observing, this is because it is impossible to''

Claim two is essentially ''The evidence we have gathered (it is implied atthis point that evidence means testable reliable, not guesses) points us in the direction of a young earth that started 6-10,000 years ago''

That's akin to stopping someone who is reading a sign that is a long ways away and saying "No you can't know that, no one can see that far, but here let me also show you by reading the sign and telling you what it really says" If someone said that to you you would point out that the two arguments for why you are wrong are mutually exclusive. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: I agree with your description of claim 2, and of your analysis on the basis of your descriptions, but don't agree that your description of claim 1 is correct. Claim 1 is more along the lines of saying that neither evolution nor creation can be ''scientifically "proved"'', as both involve untestable assumptions. Claim 2 says that you can, however, still see which view the evidence is more consistent with.
: To give an example, we observe that everything that we see begin to exist has a cause. So does that prove that the universe had a cause? No, partly because science can never actually prove anything, or, more specifically, just because everything that we ''see'' begin has a cause, doesn't mean that ''everything'' that begins has a cause. We are free to speculate that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason (as many Big Bangers do). Creationists, however, argue that the universe was created by God.
: So, ...
:* The creationists believe, ''on the basis of their theistic worldview'' that the universe was created by God.
:* The secularists believe, ''on the basis of their atheistic worldview'', that the universe had no cause.
: Neither is scientifically testable. However, it is the creationists' view that is ''more consistent with'' the evidence that observations show things that begin having a cause.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:13, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== I would like to make a new section ==

I would like to make a section about the main stream scientific criticism of YEC. I figured I should ask for permission rather than spend my time typing up something up and having it reverted. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 17:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: The article already lists criticisms, and the responses to them. If there are more that can go in this list (even if you don't know the responses), then I have no objection.
: As for "main stream scientific criticism", is there any? I've seen critics claim that creationism is simply not an issue in science, and therefore scientists don't bother criticising it (as scientists; they may criticise it as atheists, for example, though).
: It's not clear from your comment whether you are talking about a single criticism or a list of criticisms. If the latter, perhaps you could start with just one, so that you don't risk wasting too much time?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:28, 15 January 2009 (EST)

== Starlight and the Age of the Universe section ==

I propose removing most of the ''Starlight and the Age of the Universe'' section, leaving only a brief summary, as it is duplicated in the [[Starlight problem]] article. Any objections? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:41, 21 February 2009 (EST)

== Laws of Thermodynamics ==

Not that it is really a big deal, but the first and second laws of thermodynamics have been misinterpreted in this article.

They are mistakenly taught as requiring that the world becomes more chaotic over time, but they deal with energy, not matter (thermodynamics is the study of how energy behaves). The idea is better illustrated by saying that a fire in one corner of the room will spread to all the others, or a light or sound wave originating at one point will end up reflecting off all the walls. What they really mean is that all the world's energy will eventually become distributed evenly throughout the universe.

Saying that entropy means chaos is a high school-level analogy that mostly isn't taught anymore.

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-08T17:36:09Z

DanPugachev: /* Quick Reply to Karajou */

I'm not sure what to make of this, is it a parody?

If not then how could the climatic conditions required for Arctic animals be maintained alongside those of desert dwelling species?

How can the geographic distribution of species and fossils be explained by all the animals disembarking from the ark at the location?

How could a vessel be large enough to hold the enormous number of animals it would take to preserve a minimum 2 of every species let alone be large enough to hold fodder for a year especially considering the highly specialized feeding requirements of many animals?

What about animals that have lifespans shorter than a year, but also require very specific conditions to be met in order to be able to reproduce? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:Keiko the killer whale (a cold-water species) was maintained for years in a Mexico City (hot environment) aquarium. Polar bears are exhibited in zoos located in temperate and hot locations around the world. Add to that a species of penguin found in the Galapagos Islands at the equator, when it should be near Antarctica.
:In the Bible, God tells Noah that "every sort of animal shall come to him" (Gen 6:20); if God can tell the animals to go to the ark, He can tell the animals where to go when leaving the ark.
:40,000 animals the size of sheep can fit into 167 railroad boxcars, which is roughly 30% of the capacity of the ark. Furthermore, you have to take into account that not every animal is full-grown when it's aboard; after all, how much space does a 30-foot anaconda take up versus a two-foot baby? Then there are birds and reptiles which could have been cared for while they were eggs; there's hibernation. [http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/sizeark.html] [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:02, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.
::40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.
::How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?
::How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?
::How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?
::It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 07:39, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== In answer to Mr. MacKenzie ==

Mr. MacKenzie:

Did you take the trouble to read the essay itself, or the [[Noah's Ark]] article? Your comments suggest to me that you have not. You overlook many key passages in which I answer every one of the objections you raised. With one possible exception: animals having life spans less than a year. I answer that those life spans were probably a good deal longer, before the altered state of the earth's atmosphere took their toll. Recall that the average life span of the descendants of Adam was about 900 years. After the [[Great Flood]], man's life span dropped ninety percent, and in a hurry. We must assume that the life spans of animals varied in similar proportion.

Where did [[User:Karajou]] resort to invoking miracles? For that matter, where did I? Did I not explicitly state that one must employ an economy of miracles, to go along with scientific parsimony as prescribed by [[William of Occam]]?

While I'm on the subject, you overlook one other thing. You assume that true randomness exists in a [[God]]-centered universe. It does not. Nothing, of whatever character, happens without God's direct authorization. We can guess how likely a thing might be, but if God wants to act out of the ordinary, such is within His capability and, more to the point, His authority. Hence if God wants to ruin a man for repeatedly testing Him, or testing "the fates" or "Lady Luck" or whatever he wants to call it, that's His prerogative, too. (And I've seen Him do it, too. Ask any [[Las Vegas]] gambler who doesn't know to quit while he's ahead.)

Nevertheless, you overlook still another thing: God gives explicit warnings, and equally explcit instructions, to certain people when and as He pleases. He did this in [[Noah]]'s case, again in [[Abraham]]'s case, and then in [[Moses]]'s case, in which He gave far more detailed instructions for an amazingly intricate building project: the [[Tabernacle]] and all its furnishings. And then there is [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, Whose very ministry was a miracle.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:22, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply.

:Can you substantiate the claim that humans and other animals lived longer life spans in the past? The bible obviously doesn’t count because its verisimilitude is highly questionable. I ask because the current scientific understanding at least as far as humans are concerned is that life expectancy has steadily increased with time rather than decreased.

:Anything that could not be repeated by humans using the same technology as was available at the time in question is a miracle/magic. All the animals moving to the ark and not killing each other as they assembled are certainly magical or miraculous.

:If true randomness cannot exist then how can free will exist? Also can you substantiate that this universe contains properties that might be associated with a god?

:As for my questions being answered I cannot find that in the essay or the article, particularly the parasite question and the point about specialised food supplies (koala bears). Also I’d like to add another question – If Noah and his family of 8 were the only human survivors then how come such a population bottleneck is not shown in human DNA evidence? [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 14:55, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

If you're going to dismiss the Bible ''a priori'', then we have nothing to discuss. ''You'' question the "verisimilitude" (I think you mean "veracity") of the Bible, but I do not. We address [[Biblical inerrancy]] in another article on this site, and I can also direct you to [http://creationwiki.org/Biblical_inerrancy this article] that discusses the subject in somewhat greater detail.

Let me take just one aspect of the issue: prerdictions of future events. For centuries, skeptics believed that the Book of Daniel, for example, must have been written long after [[Alexander the Great]] conquered the [[Middle East]]. Then in 1947, in the middle of the high drama surrounding the establishment of the Republic of [[Israel]], a small boy threw a rock into a cave near Qumran, and the rock's impact produced the sound of breaking pottery. The little boy checked it out, and then showed up in [[Jerusalem]] hawking what he found. These were the first of the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]]. Those scrolls include manuscripts of Daniel that clearly predate Alexander, and predict his conquest of the Holy Land exactly as it occurred. And Daniel isn't the only one.

There, by the way, is a modern miracle for you. The finding of those scrolls persuaded the [[United States]] to grant diplomatic recognition to the Republic of Israel, and made the difference between Jewish statehood and a Second Holocaust.

As I said, Daniel isn't the only one. Isaiah is another. And Isaiah predicted the most striking event of all: the ministry, death and resurrection of [[Jesus Christ]].

Any text that can get all these things absolutely right, four hundred years or more ahead of time (and against odds of ten thousand quinquagintillion to one, by the way), can certainly be trusted on other events that it recorded. Like the genealogy of Adam, and the tremendous average lifespans, and the genealogy of Shem and the tremendous decline in lifespan. And like the [[Great Flood]] and the plans of [[Noah's Ark]].

I have no trouble accepting the assembly of the animals. The same God Who gave [[Noah]] his instructions for building the [[Noah's Ark|Ark]] was certainly capable of assembling the menagerie that Noah would carry. Nor is that necessarily as difficult as you are attempting to portray. Are you assuming that the continents in Noah's day were distributed as they are today? They weren't. Initially they all fit together, like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. The Flood got started with a hairline crack that appeared in this landmass and then went all the way through it. That crack persists as the Mid-Oceanic Ridge System. See [[Hydroplate Theory]] for some further details, and a link to an outside source that explains it in far greater detail than I have space to use here.

How can free will exist without randomness? Well, it can't. But that does not mean, by the way, that we need to accept the authority of any [[Barack Hussein Obama|one human being who is trying to pretend that he's God]]. It does mean that God not only knows what is going to happen well before it happens (and can give memoranda of instructions to whomever He chooses, whenever He chooses), but that He has ''decided ahead of time'' what is going to happen. Perhaps He has decided ahead of time to bring you to me, figuratively speaking, so that I may testify to you concerning His Existence, His Pre-eminence, and His Role in human affairs, ancient and modern.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:23, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reply, I'll have a proper read of it tomorrow morning and answer you then, as for now, before I sleep I just wanted to say that I did indeed mean to write verisimilitude - a word which means "the appearance of truth or likelihood", so for something to have its verisimilitude lacking or questionable is not to have a lack of truth but to have a lack of a semblance of truth. [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 18:52, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

==My answers to your questions==
''Galapagos penguins survive so far from the south pole because of two cold ocean currents that well up at the Galapagos islands making the water temperature much colder than would otherwise be expected for its latitude.''
:Still the water there is a lot warmer than it would be around Antarctica, and these penguins have no problem with the hot conditions once they're out of the water.
''40,000 sheep may be able to fit jammed into 167 railway boxes, but they cannot live there for a year and all their fodder for a year cannot fit either.''
:I didn't say there were 40,000 sheep jammed in 167 boxcars, did I? What I stated was a matter of ''capacity'', and you seemed to also overlook the fact that I said this number of animals occupied 30% of the Ark's total capacity, leaving enough room for other animals, and fodder for a year.
''How would hummingbirds (of which there are hundreds of species) have been supplied with enough food given the extremely specific nature of their dietary requirements, or koalas for that matter who require a huge amount of eucalyptus and only eucalyptus per day?''
:Again, you missed what I said above, so I'll say it again. Baby birds come packaged in eggs. Baby reptiles come packaged in eggs. Baby mammals feed upon their mother's milk, and if they don't have a mom, someone is going to get milk from elsewhere and do the job. Any zookeeper or farmer knows that, and I find it strange that a self-professed scientist doesn't. Do baby koalas slurp on eucalyptus juice before they get their teeth in, or is it mother's milk?
''How were parasites, viruses and pathogenic bacteria be prevented from totally overwhelming the animals on the ark given that the conditions would be ideal for their propagation?''
:The conditions on earth during that period of time from the creation were just about perfect; viruses were virtually non-existent. As to parasites, even a monkey can pluck them from another monkey, or a tick bird can remove them from a cow; that kind of behavior has been observed and proven, IAW step one of the [[Scientific method]].
''How were carnivorous animals kept fed for a whole year given the great number of prey animals it takes in the wild to support even a few large predators?''
:Again, mother's milk. Didn't you see that displayed in the Noah's Ark segment of the John Houston film ''The Bible''?
''It is strange that you feel the need to justify the story of the ark as if it were even remotely possible, but in the end you resort to explanations via magic anyway. If magic had to be used why didn't god just get rid of all the sinners in the blink of an eye?''
:I never resorted to a ''magic'' explanation; that one is your's. And God doesn't just "get rid of all sinners" when He knows it's much better to give them an opportunity to come to repentance through Jesus Christ. You came here with the standpoint that God doesn't exist, so now I request that you prove beyond doubt on this page that God '''doesn't''' exist...and use the Scientific method when doing so. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:00, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

::Where does all this mother’s milk come from, either there are adults on the ark providing it, thereby mitigating your argument by infancy, or there is a huge stockpile of milk taking up yet more space on an already impossibly full ark leaving alone questions of spoilage! Also owt but milk for a whole year, really?

::The parasites I was specifically thinking of are the internal type that cannot be groomed off, but also must have been on the ark from the start.

::According to Christian doctrine god is omnipotent. He knows who will repent and who won’t depending on what warnings he gives therefore he can simply erase those who he knows will not fit into his criteria for survival.

::You know that I cannot prove beyond doubt that god doesn’t exist. However you should also know that I cannot prove that the Dagda and the Morrigan don’t exist and therefore the impossibility of proving the existence of anything does not prove its existence. You have however inspired me to write an essay on why I think my atheism is scientifically justified, I’ll send you a link when i get around to it.

::By the way, no hard feelings right? Just a bit of stimulating debate! [[User:Jamesmackenzie|Jamesmackenzie]] 17:15, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:::First, and most important, there are no hard feelings anywhere! As to the mother's milk - and I did indicate this small tidbit from John Houston film - farmers ''milk'' cows and goats on a daily basis. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:57, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

== General Reply to Jamesmackenzie ==

Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no ''logical'' objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no ''logical'' flaw in the account.

Second, the [[theory of evolution]] has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.

Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.

Finally, Mr. MacKenzie need not speculate about animal behavior 5000 years ago. Animals fled to high ground in the tsunami that devastated Indonesia merely 5 years ago. Mr. MacKenzie would likely claim (based on materialism) that such behavior is impossible or implausible, yet it undeniably occurred. No need to go back 5000 years; why not simply address behavior of 5 years ago that confound [[materialist]]s?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 29 October 2009 (EDT)

:''"Two points dispose of all of Mr. MacKenzie's objections. First, there is no logical objection to the biblical account. It cannot be disproved. Let's be clear about that. It may not comport easily with someone's everyday experience 5000 years later, but the same could be said about many other facts in history also. There is simply no logical flaw in the account.”''

:There are indeed logical flaws in the story, and it can be disproved. The lack of a population bottleneck in humans from any time around when the flooding was supposed to take place is disproof of the story. The population bottleneck as described in the bible is not something that could hide; a population bottleneck of 8 individuals is extreme (the species would be classified moribund). In fact the extremity of the so called bottleneck is another logical flaw in the story, since a species requires a minimum population to remain viable (MVP(1)). The MVP for primates is estimated to be over 5,000 individuals accounting for inbreeding. Even ignoring inbreeding the MVP would still be around 1,000 individuals. That makes the most favourable (and somewhat unrealistic) estimate for minimum number of humans required for the species to survive as 125 times higher than what the bible claims we had.

:There are other logical flaws too, to name but a few: where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? If the world was flooded so recently then how come aquatic species are so localised and varied? Why did human lifetimes rapidly drop after the flood?

:''“Second, the theory of evolution has even greater difficulties explaining how species survived massive flooding. No one credibly denies that worldwide flooding occurred; even today the world is over 70% covered with water, nearly all habitation occurs within 100 feet of sea level, and limestone deposits from water are found at all heights. Local, but massive, flooding occurs frequently and widely, with devastating affects[sic]. The theory of evolution does not have a more plausible explanation for how species survive this in the long run.”''

:The world has indeed seen times of much higher sea levels, however it has never been totally submerged. Limestone deposits found at high altitude are more the consequence of isostatic action rather than eustatic action. During the times of high sea level the world would have been more like Indonesia and the Philippines, a global series of island chains and archipelagos, certainly extensive enough for terrestrial life to survive upon with some adaptation (island gigantism/island dwarfism, or terrestrial animals such as whales returning to the oceans).

:Also tsunamis aren’t really the same as long term flooding; the flood of a tsunami lasts days or weeks at most. It is certainly not difficult for animals from nearby lightly affected regions to rapidly colonise the tsunami hit area. However in the case of a tsunami it is also the case that not all animals will be killed even in the worst affected regions. These animals that do manage to survive will sometimes do so out of luck, but most will do so because they were stronger swimmers, or fast climbers etc. Then as the survivors repopulate the region they will pass on the traits that helped them survive the last tsunami to their offspring. In this way the gene pool of the animals that populate this region will have changed from how it was pre tsunami. Hence in this example evolution by natural selection has occurred!

:''"Put another way, if you think the saving of species from massive flooding was difficult with God's assistance, it is even more difficult without such assistance.”''

:I think you are making a chronological error here. Sea level change is gradual, and landmasses do not abruptly disappear into the sea. In fact the shrinking habitat, isolation of high ground from previously connected land and increased competition that will occur as a landmass is gradually overrun (over thousands of generations) by the ocean creates an exquisite set of conditions for evolution to occur in.
:As for humans previously having an extremely long lifetime, I’d like to specifically call that into question, especially given the fact that one of the justifications for the feasibility of the ark is that Noah lived hundreds of years and spent more than a modern lifetime constructing the ark. From a biological point of view the idea of historical humans living to the age of 900 is preposterous. There is a fairly consistent trend observable in archaeological evidence of human lifetimes lengthening over time. I’d be interested to hear about the remains of ancient humans that show signs of extremely (and unfeasibly even by modern standards) advanced age in their bones and teeth.

:(1)Minimum viable population – This is the threshold number of individuals required by a species to remain viable. It is defined as the point when the likelihood of extinction due to insufficient numbers of individuals remaining reaches 95%

:Also as an aside, whilst it is perfectly correct to spell Mackenzie a few different ways, including MacKenzie, I spell my name in the former manner. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 21:37, 1 November 2009 (EST)

::Your reply is extremely verbose, but identifies no logical flaw in the biblical account. All of Christianity, and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few. There is no problem with Noah et al. populating the world post-Flood. Indeed, the population size of today is compatible with a small number about 5000 years ago.

::There is no shortage of flood water. If Earth were merely slightly flatter than today, then 99% of current inhabitants would be under water without the need for one extra drop of water.

::Evolutionists cannot explain the survival of species over time any better than the Bible does. Living creatures settle near water. Water inevitably and surprisingly floods, killing the living species. This wipes out evolution. Adding intervention by God and an Ark is one logical explanation; evolutionists don't offer '''any''' alternative, let alone a logical one.

::Finally, you duck the undeniable point about tsunamis: animals flee to high ground just before it hits the shoreline. Ducking the point doesn't change the fact, which even liberal media like PBS have fully admitted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:08, 1 November 2009 (EST)

:::I’m not sure what to make of your response; it seems to me that you have missed the point of many of the things I wrote. I think you misunderstand the implications of population bottlenecks in humans. Our DNA contains a lot of information about our ancestral history, from which we can clearly see past population bottlenecks. For example the results of the mega eruption of (???) which reduced the human population to around 10,000 individuals are clearly visible in our DNA, it is like a giant red arrow on the human genome. However there is no such bottleneck visible for such a small population as described in the story of Noah’s ark, nor is there any population bottleneck at any time period even close to 5000 years ago. The implications of this are thus: either the story of Noah’s ark is not true or DNA is meaningless, and let me make this abundantly clear - we know DNA is not meaningless, the influence of DNA has been repeatedly displayed in experiments under scientific conditions.

:::I’m not sure what you mean by “''and historically all of evolution, are based on one Adam and Eve. Evolutionists have recently changed their story, but not due to any logical difficulty with a beginning of only a few.''” so I will have to refrain from attempting an answer.

:::I will again assert that there is a problem with 8 closely related individuals repopulating the world, in my last post I explained how this cannot be the case using the science of MVP which you have yet to respond to with anything other than complete dismissal. In any case I shall add to why the world wasn’t repopulated by such a few with DNA haplotypes. I don’t know the exact specifications of Noah’s family, but it really makes little difference. Noah, his wife and his children together could amount a maximum of 1 Y DNA haplotype and 2 Mitochondrial DNA haplotypes (of which only 1 Mitochondrial DNA haplotype could survive the death of Noah). Even adding a few cousins and the like you will only be able to add a few more unique DNA haplotypes (even with the most liberal of predictions) to the list. This poses another insurmountable problem to the idea of the repopulation of the world at such a late date with so few people. There are many DNA haplotypes in the world today which fit on a family tree showing their relationship with each other. There is no way to reconcile the model of DNA haplotype descent that must be the case had the story of Noah’s ark been true with what can actually be observed. Unfortunately for advocates of Noah’s ark being a factual account, as with population bottlenecks, the family tree of DNA haplotypes can and has been verified as fact through the use of repeatable experimentation in scientific conditions. Furthermore the mutation rates of specific DNA haplotypes are predictable and known, and are totally at odds with the current diversity of DNA haplotypes descending from a very small amount as recently as 5000 years ago.

:::With your implication that if the world was flatter it could easily be covered by water, you seem to be ignoring the massive elephant in the room. For the world to become flat firstly there would need to be impossibly fast tectonic action so violent it would destroy everything on earth. Secondly you ignore the fact that should the world suddenly become flat the ensuing wave of water would obliterate everything in its path regardless of it being sheltered in a relatively flimsy ark. Thirdly the cause of the flooding according to the bible is rain, not tectonic action. Given the preceding absurdities I feel I scarcely need to assert the fact that there is no evidence of any such tectonic action occurring in the past and indeed much geological evidence suggesting it didn’t.

:::You say that evolution fails to account for the survival of species when confronted with flooding. Firstly you mistakenly assume that flooding has a 100% death rate for animals affected by it. You also mistakenly assume that flooding always affects 100% of a species range. You also assume that most ‘floods’ are much more rapid then in reality. As for animals retreating to high ground just before a tsunami hits the shoreline, I haven’t read anything about this and can offer little comment. However I expect that the vast majority of animals do not retreat like this but are ignored by the media in favour of the few that do. In any case since when has endorsement by the mass media ever been a measure of truth? [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 01:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::James, first, it's obvious you didn't read the Biblical description of the Great Flood. What does Genesis 7:11 say? The "fountains of the great deep broken up" is tectonic action employed when a fault exposes an underground water source under pressure. And for the most part animals and people end up dead due to flooding, and how many fossils were ''not'' found in sedimentary (sedimentary means "water-laid") rocks? Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands or more in a short period of time. Rats, mice, rabbits, salmon, sardines, pigeons, ants, and cockroaches do it. Want an example of a large animal doing it as well? Plains bison herds in the country number about 45,000; a century ago they numbered less than 100. Sounds like a traditional small gene pool to me. And third, evolutionists are always changing their story, and it's always going to be any story ''except'' Adam and Eve. What is it now? Some monkey named "Ardi"? Two years ago it was "Lucy"; before that it was another ''Australopithicus''; before that it was good'ol Piltdown; before that it was Darwin's face mounted to a chimp.
::::Honestly, James, we've been through this many times with many others in the past, and all you're doing is putting the same old spin on the same old story. It's been debunked thoroughly on every point; it fails the [[Scientific method]] because you can't even get past that first step; and from what I've read from the above, you're just accepting evolution and old-earth stories at face value without even trying to investigate at least ''one'' aspect of them to see whether or not it's even true. From where I stand, you have to prove it's true. So please, go ahead and do exactly that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:43, 5 November 2009 (EST)

::::James, your massive essay is unresponsive. If you don't know about animals fleeing to high ground ''before'' a tsunami hits the shoreline, then open your mind and learn about it first. Really, is that too much expect? Instead, you seem to take a position of [[deliberate ignorance]], and then go on trying to disparage it anyway. Even evolutionist sources (like PBS) admit that this phenomenon occurs, but lack any plausible materialistic explanation.

::::As to massive flooding, materialists don't explain the survival of species through historic flooding any better than the Bible does. So if you find the biblical explanation deficient, then by applying your same standard you'd find evolution even more deficient. Instead, you use unproven speculation upon speculation to try to salvage your theory, while giving the biblical theory none of the same benefits of the doubt. That's called a [[double standard]], an unattractive characteristic common to the [[liberal]] ideology.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:41, 5 November 2009 (EST)

== Quick Reply to Karajou ==

You obviously have no idea what a DNA haplotype actually is, otherwise you would not have made such a nonsensical statement as ''"Second, you're restricting yourself to DNA haplotypes as written on a blackboard, yet refusing to see first-hand that living organisms can and do multiply very rapidly from a very few into thousands..."'' DNA haplotypes have nothing really to do with genetic viability of a small population expanding into a larger one.

And what's next? A nonsensical rant about Adam and Eve, Piltdown man (which has some suspicious links to anti evolution advocates) and Darwin's face on a chimp. It is clear that you are deeply confused about evolution, you think that Darwin's face on a chimp was an evolutionist idea? It was a cartoon by creationists intended to lampoon Darwin. You accuse me of accepting old-earth and evolution at face value, this is highly ironic since from your posts I can be reasonably sure that you do not come even close to understanding what evolution actually is. I'm frankly not surprised that you have gone though this many times before, and I’ll wager you will go through it many times again because the problem here is not with everyone else. It is your incomplete understanding that creates this cycle, a cycle that can only be broken if you actually investigated evolution from a pro evolution scientific position. But I imagine that this will never happen because I'd guess you aren't interested in the truth, rather you are probably trapped within an ‘us and them’ mentality that can never allow you to explore the possibly that the position you hold is untenable.

Please prove me wrong, explain to me in simple terms what the theory of evolution entails and if you do a reasonable job of it I will concede the point to you. Also could you tell me when DNA haplotypes have been debunked or when population bottlenecks have been debunked? I suspect what you when you say debunked is actually ignored or dismissed with no justification.

I don't like having to make such a negative reply, whilst I disagree on many levels with Andy and others I have been debating with on this page none of their replies have made me angry, whist yours has me frustrated at the ludicrous way you have responded to my points without even knowing what they are. [[User:jamesmackenzie|James Mackenzie]] 16:16, 5 November 2009 (EST)

:Two things, JamesMackenzie: First, I did investigate evolution, I know full-well what evolution consists of; I know it's a claimed "change over time" scenario; and I know full-well that evolutionists such as yourself have no intention of backing those claims up with absolute proof. I and others on this site are fed up with being given a the "hearsay" argument by evolutionists, and ''hearsay'' is all they got. Second, when directed to provide proof of evolution ''as per the Scientific Method'', you back down and turn your reply into the rant that is here. It is you who is ignoring the debunked evidence.
:So, when directed to prove it, you demonstrated an attitude problem. I think you need to edit somewhere else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::Just a quick note, you seem to have misunderstood the scientific method. The aim is not to 'prove' the theory of evolution, this, as with all general theories, is logically impossible. Science operates by trying to falsify theories. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 16:45, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::Oh yes, the process of falsification. And if evolution is falsified, then what's the problem? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 5 November 2009 (EST)
::::Before I get bogged down in explaining the fundamentals of the scientific method all over again, may I suggest you read in more detail what it is and how it works. The article on this site actually has some rather good details on this. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 17:03, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:::::DWiggins, if you look at the history of that article, you'll discover the fact that I wrote it...[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=188946&oldid=168951] :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:06, 5 November 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, I would not consider 3 edits out of around 100 to in anyway constitute a claim to having 'wrote it'. I said ''some'' rather good details, insofar as it gives a reasonable overview of the scientific method but is rather clumsy in addressing more specific aspects, omitting several key points. [[User:DWiggins|DWiggins]] 18:28, 5 November 2009 (EST)
:[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_method&diff=367588&oldid=168951 That's] a pretty big contribution. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 18:38, 5 November 2009 (EST)

James, your own postings are extremely verbose with little on topic and yet ... you accuse Karajou of a "rant"??? This talk page is your criticism of the biblical explanation of survival by mammals of a massive flood. Do you think evolution has a better explanation of how mammals could survive a massive flood? I'd love to hear it if you have one. I don't think anyone denies that all of the inhabitable earth has been flooded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Arguments don't go away when you call them verbose.

1. He wasn't saying that small populations don't become larger over time. That's the story of human history, but a small family with nothing other than stone tools would be fighting an enormous struggle just to survive until tomorrow and maybe raise and sustain enough children to replace those who have died. They would all live together. Disease would strike and spread fast. Up until the Renaissance, one out of every three children died before they were five, and that was within societies that had some degree of agricultural development, trade, and infrastructure. A small clan left to nothing but their own strength cannot possibly create, feed, and keep alive enough offspring to grow the population.

That's what happened when the Spanish deported the people of Rapa Nui as slaves. Passed a certain point, the population does not recover.

2. Evolution is not a theory about the Great Flood. You don't disprove it because it doesn't address the Great Flood. That's like saying the Bible is false because it doesn't talk about atoms, photons, DNA, or redox reactions.

3. There is nothing you could tweak in the atmosphere that would make people live to be 900. Changing or adding anything other than oxygen and maybe some nitrogen would be lethal, and oxygen can only increase so much before it becomes toxic. The basic nature of life in general is that it does not last nine hundred years.

4. About the Running From a Tsunami thing - There is a completely naturalistic way to explain this. The animals hear the infrasound produced by the wave rolling in and run away. The animals that can't hear infrasound get spooked and run too. Regardless, nature is infinitely more complex than the human mind can possibly understand. Just because you can't tell me why the animals run doesn't mean it's magic.

5. About the Milk thing - Infant animals are small and able to sustain themselves on milk, but where does the milk come from? Saying they lived off milk is saying they weren't infants since milk is produced only by adults. So did they pack the milk in the ark? If they did, where did it come from?

6. If the water came from under the earth's crust, wouldn't it have been steam? What have you seen coming out of the mantle that isn't scalding? Is there any evidence that such a split happened, or is it just a semi-plausible explanation for something you already made up your mind to believe?

7. Limestone takes time to form. The flood would've had to last for hundreds of years (or longer) in order to build up the global layer of rock. The more likely explanation is that, at one point in geologic time or another, all land was underwater. The limestone formed there and was transported above sea level by the normal processes of the earth.

[[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 19:06, 7 November 2009 (EST)

: Dan, logic is concise, while running from logic takes many words. The biblical account is perfectly logical. You can't identify a logical flaw in it.

: You have free will to reject logic. But if you reject it, then lots of new questions are raised about your substitute. Massive flooding undoubtedly occurred. How do you think mammals survived it? Evolution does not have a plausible, detailed explanation.

: Most evolutionists run from [[Counterexamples to evolution|facts that disprove their theory]], just as animals run to high ground before a tsunami hits shore. No, that isn't random running from being "spooked" by some mysterious ultrasound, any more than chickens ''randomly'' return from distant places at the exact same point of nightfall each day, and jump into their chicken coop in the exact same order. I know, you never heard that about chickens either. There's much an evolutionist has "never heard of." I urge to you open your mind and let logic in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 7 November 2009 (EST)
::In answer to his #6, he's implying that water underground is steamy-hot, as well as a figment of my imagination. If he'd pay more attention to geology - specifically the geology of the Great Plains - he'd probably find mention of the Ogalalla Aquifer [http://www.npwd.org/Ogallala.htm], which is a remnant of the "waters of the great deep" bursting forth in Genesis. In answer to his #5, I stated that twice above, but apparently he forgets that ''people get milk from cows''. That's ''cows'', Dan; it means you tie Bessie to the hitching post, grab a small stool, and sit for an hour filling a wooden bucket. It's where milk came from in the days before people went Krogering. Remember, Andy, that these people expect and demand that we accept whatever explanation science has to offer - and that's ''any explanation except the Bible''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:55, 8 November 2009 (EST)

:::First off, it's not some mysterious ultrasound. It's infrasound, and it's completely different. It is emitted by tsunami waves and is very well documented as causing signs of discomfort and fear in animals and even human beings, though we cannot consciously detect it. So why do the chickens return? It isn't some combination of sense of smell, homing using the sun, and possibly detecting the earth's magnetic field (which many birds do)? Is it the hand of God, who somehow forgot to warn the people about the tsunami? It's just the animals? Stories about animals being impressive do not disprove evolution in any way.

:::Evolution does not explain it because evolution is not a theory about surviving a flood that may or may not have occurred. Outside of the Biblical story, can anyone produce a single piece of physical and indisputable evidence? Karajou, you'd call any massive aquifer a remnant of the great flood, when it is perfectly explainable that the Ogalalla formed from water moving down through the soil and into the water table when the North American glaciers melted. If it resulted from a massive flood, wouldn't you expect to see aquifers like the Ogalalla (which, yes, I have heard of) all over the world? There aren't. And if the flood happened, as it was asserted earlier, when a fault broke Pangaea apart in a process like the seafloor spreading we see today, anything that would be released would come from the mantle as steam or superheated water that would boil on the surface. [[User:DanPugachev|DanPugachev]] 12:36, 8 November 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-08T00:06:08Z

DanPugachev:

Talk:Essay:Noah's Ark Was Real

2009-11-08T00:05:19Z

DanPugachev: