Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-02-23T03:35:09Z

Dawoad: /* Please list banned sites */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]



Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

lol As I recall many of those liberals who "Resorted to acts of cyber-vandalism" we're summarily banned without any explanation. Further more you guys really have to stop quashing all mention of that nasty little incident that you people had with the FBI.. I mean you believe in open acess to information right? [[User:Dawoad|Dawoad]]

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Commandments

2009-02-23T03:34:46Z

Dawoad: /* Please list banned sites */

==Archives==
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 2|Archive 2]]
*[[Conservapedia talk:Commandments/Archive 3|Archive 3]]



Andy Schlafly approved the uncited template being mentioned in the conservapedia commandments in a personal email to me.

Here is what I added:

In addition, Conservapedia's Manual of Style shows new Conservapedia wiki users [[Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help|how to flag an article or section of an article which is uncited]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please expand on the meaning of "verifiable" ==

I've encountered many editors who permit references to the bible. While faith is fine, a lot of the bible is unverified. For example, Jesus may have existed however it cannot be verified that he was the son of god.

Furthermore, the article on god claims "God exercises eternal and righteous judgment of the wicked in hell, because of an inherent problem in the human heart, namely Sin." After asking the editor for verifiable evidence of this he claimed the bible was a reliable source.

If verifiable is defined to include biblical references, so be it. If this is the case a commandment should be made specifying which texts are deemed to be truth and not, as this will resolve much debate.

Otherwise commandment #1 should be greatly expanded because observations made from the bible are quite simply not verifiable and many editors seem to believe they are. I should point out this is not an anti-christian statement, this is just not-pro-christian and nothing in the commandments claim this is a christian encyclopedia.[[User:Qc|Qc]] 22:20, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Whilst not a direct answer to your question, you might find that my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] goes a fair way towards answering that.
: There's no point in trying to list all reliable sources, and not much point in just listing a handful. So there's no need for a commandment on this.
: This is not an official response; just my opinion. Others might see things differently.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::"It is therefore unreasonable to say that God's existence cannot be proved. God's existence indeed can be proved, depending on what evidence it takes to convince one. "

::This quote from your article illustrates my point exactly. Conservapedia needs to set a standard for what constitutes valid "convincing" because every user is going to have their own personal threshold for accepting evidence. Saying evidence must be "verifiable" isn't enough because most editors don't even have an agreed upon definition of this term. [[User:Qc|Qc]] 14:05, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Two questions ==

I have two questions that I've been wondering about lately. First: what are our (and should we have) guidelines on notability? It seems like we have no real way to judge what should be in the encyclopedia. (For instance, somewhere around here, and I wish I could remember the name now, there's an article about a high school band.) I know we don't like many rules, but guidelines would be very helpful. Suggestions?

Next: do we (and should we) have rules on conflict of interest? I think largely you know best about yourself, so it would be wrong to completely ban conflict of interest cases. But how do we know when something has gone too far, or when someone is censoring information about themselves?

I don't know if these will or should go on the commandments, but this is probably as good a place as any to discuss. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:16, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
: Notability is a very difficult one, in my opinion. I saw some of the debates on that on Wikipedia a couple of years ago. There was something there about not doing an article on every school, just "notable" ones. But then another of their guidelines on notability had to do with whether or not a book had been published on the topic. It wouldn't surprise me to find that many schools have had books published about them (certainly my primary school has, and probably my high school also, and the primary school in particular was only significant in a local sense).
: Railway stations were another area of contention; probably not too many railway stations have had a book published specifically about them, but there's certainly plenty of books that give individual histories of each railway station. In a sense, you could define "notable" as anything that more than x number of people would be interested in looking up to find out more about it. But then there's not too much that would be off limits. And with an electronic encyclopedia where space is not that much of an issue, why not?
: But I can also appreciate an opposing view that we don't want to much trivia and articles on insignificant topics. It's very hard to know where to draw the line.

: We've said before that the best people to write articles are those that know most about them, and I don't see a problem with people writing about things close to themselves. However, what I would suggest is that if we are writing about something that we have a financial interest in, or about a person we are related to, etc. (again, it's hard to know where to draw the line), then we should declare our connection, i.e. make it known what our relationship to the topic (person, etc.) is. This will allow others, who of course can also edit the same articles, to judge whether or not we are being less than objective in our edits. That's a reason for using our real names too, of course!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:47, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

::I hadn't thought about that with notability. Seems like there probably isn't a good way to have specific guidelines, they must be kept general.

::That's a very good idea on COI as well. Perhaps someone could create a template (along the same vein as {{tl|copied from}}) to warn others of a potential conflict. It would obviously have to be on an honor system.

::Hey, Help Jazz ''is'' my real name! My parents were famous jazz musicians and they named me when they were worried about the death of jazz as a genre... or something like that ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:14, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

== Celebrating the Death of Inevitability! ==

When Richard Nixon boarded a United States Helicopter on the lawn on the White House on August 9, 1974, America celebrated the end of one of the most difficult periods in U.S. history.

Nixon's successor, Gerald Ford, summed up the situation nicely when he said, ""Our long national nightmare is over."

And so it was.

Now, nearly thirty-four years later, America again has cause to celebrate the end of a political career that would have spelled doom for the nation had that career been allowed to continue.

Hillary Clinton, self-proclaimed queen of "inevitability," was shoved back into her box this week, putting an end to her dream of being the first woman, aside from Monica Lewinsky, to have her way in the Oval Office.

Not since the days of Richard Nixon has there been an American political figure so utterly despised by so many Americans. It is worth noting that Richard Nixon had to become president in order to attain notoriety as Public Enemy # 1; Hillary Clinton achieved the same distinction by just running.

Which is quite understandable, given the fact that seventeen months of campaigning by a feminist socialist like HRC is more disagreeable than five years of abuse from the Nixon administration.

All in all, America has much to celebrate, as our "least favorite daughter" no longer poses a threat to the sanity and purity of the White House.

One might even say that, with the death of Hillary's fairy tale about inevitability, "Our long national nightmare is over."

Long live the death of inevitability!

Now, what to do about Barack Obama?

==Suggestion==
That blasphemy be explicitly forbidden in the CC rather than implicitly. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why? Its already covered in commandment 3. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::I would have said so too, but a banned user is querying its being forbidden, and a sysop has complained - quite extraordinarily, in my view - that a 3 day ban was 'excessive'. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Where are these conversations? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:57, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Both on emails to me, which I shall copy to this page if you wish. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
While we are at it, I think that 'disruptive behaviour' should also be added, whether it is in breach of 90/10 or not. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]

: Thanks for the interesting suggestion. I wonder if it can be defined, however. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:15, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

''The following reply to my question above was moved from my talk page to here to keep the conversation in one place''

:This is the email sent to me by a sysop protesting my ban of 3 days on a blasphemous user:

:''I think your block of user:DannyRedful was excessive. You should have just warned him, or else went with a shorter block length. probably no more than one day.''

:That is why blasphemy needs to be explicitly forbidden in the CC. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Did the sysop know that the offence was in an e-mail? I certainly had no idea until this message. I don't want you copying blasphemy to this page, so I'll take your word for now that it ''was'' bad enough to warrant a short block. But this raises the question of how much a ''private'' conversation should be used to justify a block. I know I wouldn't do so, but then I'm somewhat more forgiving than some. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:The offending phrase was not used in an email but on an article talk page - it was the sysop response that was in an email. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:14, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I asked where the conversations were, and you said that they were "''both'' on emails" to you (my emphasis). If that's not the case, then my original question, about where the conversation was, stands. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:06, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::1. Dannyredful blasphemes on a CP page. 2. I block him. 3. I get an email from DannyRedful moaning about this. 4. I get an email from a sysop complaining that DannyRedful should not have been blocked for blasphemy. OK? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: That still doesn't tell me ''where'' this happened. However, from other clues here, I'm gathering that it was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_parables&diff=prev&oldid=473489 here]. Correct? And if so, why couldn't you have said so when I first asked? Nevertheless, I see your point, and would not object to a small change to the commandments; although neither am I convinced that it's really necessary. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
DannyRedful was a sock of two other users anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::JecklynH was the name of one of his socks, suggesting a "two-faced" approach. I looked at his edits, and apart from the blasphemy there was some mild foul language attached to it, like Conservapedia is relegated to street level. He can come back with an apology first, I would think. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:30, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Please list banned sites ==

Apparently mention of at least one other reference site is banned, and leads to automatic reversion of any edits mentioning it. It would be helpful if there was a list of these sites (assuming there are more than one), and perhaps a little explanation of why they are banned. I assume those sites are guilty of something worse than simply disagreeing with Conservapedia's POV. Thanks. --[[User:Woozle|woozle]] 19:22, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
:I only know of one banned site, but is certainly isn't a reference site nor is there any reason why your edits should be mentioning it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:34, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::Just type in "Conservapedia" and "FBI" on a google search and it will be the first result. Happy reading!--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:11, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Attempting to create a list of "banned sites" would be pointless. There are a great many sites on the Internet that contain content inappropriate to and incompatible with Conservapedia's "family friendly" mission statement. Attempting to list them all would be a Sisyphean task. It's much more sensible simply to indicate, for instance, that pornography and links to pornography are unacceptable, rather than attempting to catalog every porn site on the Web as a "banned site." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:17, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Not all banned sites are porn sites. Some simply disagree with Conservapedia's POV. I think we can take it as a given that porn sites are not OK.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 20:23, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::We can also take it as a given that sites which specifically attack conservative values in general, or Conservapedia in particular, are not OK. It's one thing to respectfully disagree; it's another thing entirely to attack and ridicule. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:36, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Respectful disagreement is good. I asked the liberals to help us point out where CP and they disagree, but they refused and left in a huff. They want to dictate what we write, apparently.

What a shame that liberals who say they believe in freedom and human dignity refuse to grant the same rights to others that they demand for themselves. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:53, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
: I agree Ed. Instead they resort to, by their own admission, acts of cyber-vandalism. What a shame. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:26, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

lol As I recall many of those liberals who "Resorted to acts of cyber-vandalism" we're summarily banned without any explanation. Further more you guys really have to stop quashing all mention of that nasty little incident that you people had with the FBI.. I mean you believe in open acess to information right?

== Amendment Recommendation ==
Alright, It's well understood that Wikipedia's chief admins tend to lean way left-of-center. That's fine. Our resentment isn't with the fact that they have a bias; it's that they're arrogant enough to still posture themselves as "neutral" in the process. Hence, Conservapedia's existence--realistically, there wouldn't even be a Conservapedia if there weren't such a left-wing slant in so many of Wikipedia's articles.

But just what is the main purpose of Conservapedia supposed to be? I mean, the name suggests that we are not just some philosophically blank community of writers and editors. We have a point of view, and we're not ashamed to put that view right in the very name of our site. Otherwise, why bother naming the site something as direct as "Conservapedia"?

That said, what's our purpose? It seems to me that to live true to the name, we should be directing our efforts at collecting information, research, and data that falls in at least one of only two categories:

1) Info that will somehow and in some way help us promote the conservative view, and 
2) info that will help us bring damage to and discredit the left's ideas and ambitions.

Any info which lies outside of these two categories may be interesting, and even accurate; but why would it belong in Conservapedia? More to the point, suppose there is a "neutral" topic which describes a dishonorable practice. And in that topic, we catalog all the instances the left have engaged in this dishonorable practice. Suppose further that an obviously left-wing contributor adds info to that article which is intended to bring damage to (and attempts to discredit) the conservative cause. In the interest of "neutrality," I suppose we could simply just leave it there. But then what interest would that serve for our readers? If much of the content we see in the web is already aimed at diminishing the conservative view, what obligates Conservapedia to follow suit in that trend?

Perhaps we can amend the Commandments to direct all future efforts to allow only the two categories of info I just mentioned? If there's a third that's equally important, I'd like to hear what that is. I'm open to revisions... [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 12:15, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:Well, it was started by a school classes as an alternative encyclopedia to Wikipedia, meaning that ''any'' schoolastic subject should be fair game, at a minimum. Also I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that neutrality section. Are you trying to say that we should delete anything true but negative about conservatives or conservatism? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:19, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::All I'm saying is, yes, we have to be fair. But fairness only requires that we apply our chosen rules equally in all cases. And being "fair" doesn't mean that we have to be neutral. I mean, with a name like Conservapedia, are we still really that concerned about playing "neutral" in what kinds of content we decide to allow? We're conservapedians. We have a point of view. And if the site is being modified by decidedly left-wing users to catalog information which diminishes that point of view, I don't see why the Commandments section shouldn't be modified to keep that from becoming a trend. Yes, all information that's entered on the site needs to be accurate. But that doesn't mean we have to give the other side a voice; especially when they already dominate much of the information centers of the world.

::Again, all I'm proposing is an amendment that confines future contributions to information and research that falls in either one of the above categories, and I'll even include a third one:

::3) Information that's both genuinely neutral ''and'' non-political.

::[[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 21:51, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
:::If you add number 3, then what's left? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:02, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, I mean that under the proposed change, categories 1, 2, and 3 would be content that's ''allowed'' on Conservapedia. I sincerely think that including these changes in the language of the Commandments now would help prevent serious headaches in the future. [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 22:06, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::::Oh, I guess I see. Wouldn't it be quicker to make a commandment that says "don't put information that's positive towards liberals or negative towards conservatives" (because that seems to be the only subject left that doesn't fall into one of the three categories)? As Andy mentions (below me), a goal of a truthful, conservative encyclopedia should be clear enough, unless you are actually advocating putting into the commandments a policy that censors truthful information that sheds harmful light on a conservative. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:42, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

::::: The name "Conservapedia" simply means that we are free of liberal and anti-conservative bias. Conservative information is truthful. Our slogan (from the Gospels), "the truth shall set you free," is clear enough.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Who created God?

2009-02-23T03:31:34Z

Dawoad:

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros
:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

[[User:ChillinBM]]

For all those of you out there who are biblical literalists. How do you explain away the various discrepancies between what is written in the bible and what has been documented to have happened on earth? For example, how does one explain the great flood that clearly didn't happen? Or explain away the existence of an ARC that we, today, could not create (I mean you could build it but it wouldn't stay together in a class six Beaufort storm not to mention the kind of conditions required to flood the entire world). A wooden boat of that size would either sink, flood or fall apart depending on how one built it (there is no optimal design here, run it through auto cad and stress testing software if you don't believe me). If the bible is not literally true, then, why believe anything written? I mean if it is the only source for various things that Christians believe while the times when it is not the only source it is generally proven incorrect, then why trust it when it is the sole source? I can understand using it as a guideline to direct "morale' behavior but taking the bible literally is just silly.

[[User:DaWoad]]

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Who created God?

2009-02-23T03:30:08Z

Dawoad:

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros
:I'm sure Philip will get involved here—and believe you me, he is far more qualified to answer this question—but I'm going to take a stab at it. The problem that most can't get past is the notion that God "is, was, and ever shall be," the alpha and omega, so on and so forth. God supersedes time; he in fact ''created'' time according to the Judeo-Christian theology. There was no past before God/YHWH. Nothing needed to come before him, because he is the source of all things, including time itself. It gets complicated there because it's hard to imagine a universe without time; though technically, there wasn't a universe at all until he created it (once again, according to Judeo-Christian theology or at least my best knowledge of it). I'm going to let Philip chime in here and correct any mistakes I've made, and maybe give you a bit more concise explanation as I'm sure he—or one of the many others here—have come across this question far more often than I have. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Typical Darwin lover know-it-all question. Ok smart guy, tell me where space ends and I will tell you who created God.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:12, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

: Okay, Jeffrey W. Lauttamus invited me here to comment, so here I am. God is an uncreated being, so it is nothing more than a nonsense question to ask who created an uncreated being.
: That likely then raises the question about how He could be uncreated, to which there are at least two replies:
:* As Jeffrey explained, God exists outside of time. He created time; He is not subject to it. A beginning implies a point in time, but as God is outside of it, that He had a beginning doesn't follow.
:* ''Something'' (or someone) ''must be'' eternal. If it's not God, it might be this universe. But science now has good reason to think that the universe is not eternal, which begs the question of who or what created the universe. (And the universe, by the way, is known as the space/time continuum; time itself began with the universe.) Ultimately, as you go back, the only option left is something or someone that is eternal. And as the laws of physics don't allow for something physical to be eternal, then that something/someone must be non-physical, or spiritual.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:25, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok... That makes since. We cannot bound God to logic because he created it. Thanks for clearing that up.-Ros

: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:45, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

This is an interesting subject. One of the most common argument's for God's existence is some form of the 'watchmaker' analogy - I.E. that the existence of the universe implies that it was created & therefore the existence of a creator (God). Does the existence of God also imply that He was created? And if not, why not? [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:04, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
: The watchmaker analogy is referring to something that was obviously designed because of it's complexity of multiple interacting parts that would not occur naturally. God is not a complexity of multiple interacting parts, so the same argument does not apply to him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:09, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::There are many examples of complex interacting ecosystems occurring naturally. But of course the watchmaker analogy would suggest that these are in fact created. That is the problem with the waychmaker argument - it suggest that what seems to occur naturally actually doesn't occur naturally. It cannot be disproved, but it only proves itself if it assumes itself to be true. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:21, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
::: No, it's not a circular argument at all. It is arguing from what we observe (that complex things such as watches and other machinery do not occur without a designer) to what we don't observe (the origin of living things). That sort of deduction is perfectly valid, even if not absolute proof. And we are talking about the ''origin'' of living things, so I dispute that they do "seem" to occur naturally. Being unobserved, they don't "seem" anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:28, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

::::See my problem is that I don't understand why something or someone "must be" eternal. Why could the universe have not 'just happened'? Sure it might be unlikely but maybe it isn't. I just don't see the need for God in a logical argument about the existence of anything. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 10:47, 29 September 2008 (AEST)
::::: See my problem is that I don't understand how something could have 'just happened' out of absolutely nothing. If you want to fantasize that absolutely nothing can become something for no reason, then I can't stop you, but that is the realm of fantasy and blind faith, whereas I prefer to stick to reason and observation (we ''observe'' that everything that happens has a cause). That something must be eternal is a deduction from that. The logic for God is that this physical universe must have had a beginning, all events have a cause, the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural), therefore there must be a God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:21, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Haha oh how I have missed debating against you. OK. Well I don't quite see it as that. I don't think that something can come from absolutely nothing either. But I cannot postulate a God to solve that problem because God himself is complex. Certainly we cannot see or examine him to prove how complex he is physically. But an omniscient, omnipotent being that created the entire universe and life itself? That cannot be anything BUT complex. And something that complex has to have a starting point because only something simple, incredibly simple can come about by chance. Something like a singularity. Note that I'm not saying that the Big Band did come around by chance, only that it is far more likely then God coming about by chance. I admit that this is not as scientific or provable as I would like it to be, it does involve some blind faith, however I think that you're position involves more blind faith then mine.
::::::I do take issue with your assertion that "the cause of all of physical reality must be something non-physical (i.e. supernatural)". Why do you say that? I cannot see how you reached that conclusion. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:49, 29 September 2008 (AEST)

::::::: God is not complex: He is not composed of parts. See an [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Extraterrestrial_life&diff=504256&oldid=504017 earlier post] of mine.
::::::: If the cause of all physical reality was something physical, then something physical must have existed before something physical existed. This is an impossibility, so the only option left is that the cause of all physical reality must be something ''non''-physical.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
Actually thats the only option the bible leaves open, just because its the only possiblitiy you believe in doesn't mean its the truth. Logiclly there is no 'truth' nothing can ever really proven to be 'right' only that it cannot be proven wrong. Its why everything is considered a 'theory' including my claim i just made. You simply leave out the fact that you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that the universe can be of something that can rationally be explained without help of a greater being. Your saying that we cannot examine the thing that started the universe, and yet somehow you were able to magically understand that it created the universe. Before you can claim something you need to prove it. Just because some people are ignorant and dont understand the thinkings of logic and reason doesn't mean everyone will, your claim only pulls us further into the question of what created the non-physical then? What is the non-physical? If it doesn't consist of atoms than what does it consist of? how did this nothingness create something? [[User:ChillinBM]]

:I might not have put it as bluntly as Chillin did, but he's certainly made a clear point. For me, the claim that God is not complex seems to be supportless other then by continuous assertion that it is the case. All I have seen is "God is not complex. Why? Because we can't understand him." and maybe I have missed an important point.
:You're argument there is one of infinite regress and there is a problem with that. Just because you seem to have an infinite regress does not mean that you need invoke something supernatural as a terminator. For example, it was long wondered what would happen if you cut iron into the smallest possible pieces, and then cut it in half again. Surely, by logic, you could continue to halve the pieces infinately. In fact, the once you reach a single atom of iron, the regress has a natural terminator, if you cut the atom in half, whatever is left is no longer iron, it is some other element. I do not know what natural terminator solves the cause and effect regress however I feel justified in not assuming a supernatural terminator for this regress. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 8:34, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

::No, ChillnBM, it is not the Bible that leaves only that option, but logic. But perhaps I was remiss in not explaining myself properly. I was working on the basis that there is the ''natural'' (or physical) and the ''supernatural'' (or non-physical). That is, ''physical'' and ''non-physical'' are, between them, all-encompassing. There can be nothing that is neither physical nor non-physical. So having eliminated one, you are left with the other.
:: If "logically there is no truth", then that statement itself is not true. So logically, there ''must'' be "truth". What you are getting confused with is ''scientific proof''. In that you are correct; science can only ''disprove'', it can't ''prove''. But that's different to ''truth'', which ''must'' exist. See also sections 1 and 2 of my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].
:: I can't prove ''scientifically'' that God exists, but I can prove it ''logically'' by eliminating the alternatives. Science has eliminated an eternal universe, which means that the universe had a beginning, but has not explained (and cannot explain) what caused the universe to begin. Logically, the beginning of the universe (all of physical reality) must have a non-physical (i.e. supernatural) cause.
:: We know that the ''physical'' must have had a beginning, but we don't know that the ''supernatural'' must have had a beginning, so there is no necessity to explain how the supernatural began. Furthermore, science also shows that ''time'' is an integral part of the universe, so without the universe, i.e. in the realm of that deduced supernatural, ''time'' does not exist. Which means that talking about a ''beginning'' for the supernatural is a bit of nonsense anyway.
:: Deducing that ''something'' supernatural must have created the universe is not at all contradictory to saying that science can't ''study'' the supernatural, so there's no "magic" involved.
:: "''Before you can claim something you need to prove it.''": And yet you didn't bother to prove that claim before you made it. Or prove it afterwards either. Furthermore, you yourself said that things ''can't'' be proved.
:: I don't have to explain every point of something in order to claim the basic point. That is, I can legitimately claim that there must be a supernatural creator without having to explain what He is made of or how He created. And by the way, your final question was a loaded one, referring to the supernatural as "nothingness". Being non-physical doesn't mean that it is "nothingness". In fact, it is ''you'' who has this problem. If you discount God (the supernatural), then you are left with the Big Bang, which is ''nothing'' exploding and becoming everything. So I ask ''you'', "how did this nothingness create something?".

:: Bolly, the quote that I linked to was not just "continuous assertion", and neither was it "because we can't understand him". Admittedly that quote didn't go into much detail, but it indicated that there's been plenty of study of this matter (and ''study'' implies something more than "continuous assertion" or "because we can't understand him") and it also briefly explained some of the rationale.
:: Your "satisfaction" in not assuming a supernatural terminator seems mere wishful thinking, given that you've found a ''different'' infinite regress case that didn't need one. That's not a solid argument at all.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:25, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I do not find that rationale convincing at all, and I still feel that it has little substance. From what I can understand, you outline the reasons why people like me think that God must be complex and they seem to me to be fairly convincing. In return you seem to say "how do you know that he cannot be complex?". Which is true, i don't 'know' that, however it is no real argument, simply a statement.
:::It's not wishful thinking to posit a natural terminator when there are situations in which a former infite regress is shown to have a natural terminator. I agree that it is not a perfect analogy, and certainly not 'proof'. But I would argue that it is a lot more simple and more likely considering that the evidence for any form of supernatural activity, being or event seems to be very limited. So while we 'know' that natural things can exist, we cannot have the same certainty about anything supernatural. I apologise if my argument is not concise but I think you can understand where I am coming from. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:06, 1 October 2008 (AEST)

:::: Is the evidence for the supernatural really that limited? Or is it just that you choose to not believe it? Or haven't looked for it? What sort of evidence would you expect? Even apart from the origin of the universe, there is the matter of the origin of life, and the incredible design and information evident in it. We know from observation that design requires a designer, and information requires an intelligence. We have no viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. I would consider that to be evidence for the supernatural. Then there is historical documentary evidence, i.e. the Bible. It records various supernatural events. True, one cannot ''scientifically'' test those claims, but one ''can'' look at the source of those claims and conclude that the source is a very reliable one. So again, that becomes ''evidence'' (albeit not scientific proof) of supernatural activity. So I reject your claim that there is very limited evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

:::::I think it is. No, because although you might laugh at this claim, I have an open mind. If the evidence is there I am more then willing to look at it, examine it, and then accept it if it's satisfactory. Ah, the design = designer argument. You are correct that 'design' requires a designer, however it can be easy to mistake complexity for design. I don't think they're the same thing. I think evolution more the adequately explains the complexity of life. Leaving that aside, you are correct that the beginning of the universe and the origin of life are two events that we have almost no knowledge of, or evidence based theory for. However lack of a naturalistic explanation does not automatically mean that it must have been supernatural. And the bible. While I don't wish to start this argument again because it stalemates so easily and neither of us achieves anything, I do not accept the bible as anything more then a collection of anecdotes with some small historical accuracy, that only comes from an event that is recorded several generations after its occurence. That's not to say that the bible is worthless, only that you cannot use it on its own to support supernaturalism. For example, some conspiracy theorist whos name sounded dutch but I cannot remember it, claimed that the story of Sodom was actually about an alien civilisation nuking the city. Ridiculous? Almost certainly, but his "theory" almost perfectly explained the origin of that bible story. I'm definately not saying that he was correct, just that the bible can prove a lot of things if you want it to. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 9:52, 2 October 2008 (AEST)

:::::: Almost everybody thinks that they have an open mind, so thinking it is not much in the way of evidence.
:::::: Is it truly easy to mistake complexity for design? What complexity do you know of that wasn't designed? Of course, if you mention ''life'', you are begging the question, and evolution ''can't'' explain it.
:::::: The origins of the universe and of life are not simply things for which there is a "lack of a naturalistic explanation", but for which the naturalistic explanation is ''against''. For example, experiments, such as Stanley and Miller’s(?), show that life ''could not'' occur naturally. I'm not saying that such experiments rule out all possible explanations; rather, I'm saying that the experiments not only did not support naturalistic origins of life, but also provided reasons ''against'' a naturalistic explanation. To provide an example of that example, life requires optically-pure amino acids, whereas their experiment produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids. That is, their experiments produced a ''problem'' for naturalistic explanations to explain. In summary, the available evidence is not simply ''missing'', but ''opposed'' to a naturalistic explanations.
:::::: The Bible has far more than just "small historical accuracy", and most of it is eye-witness accounts, not "recorded several generations after its occurence".
:::::: Are you thinking of Von Daniken? Without knowing his "explanation", I can't comment much, but most explanations I’ve seen of biblical events simply ignore large parts of what the Bible actually says. A good example is the claim that the flooding of the Black Sea is the origin of the Bible's flood account.[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3392]
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) You are right of course, but I still like to think so!

I think it is. You're correct that if I say 'life' it does beg the question but what about something like the water cycle? You know, evaporation over the sea, condensations in the clouds, precipitation over land or sea and it all starts again. Sure its not really complex but many tribes and civilisations over the years have worshipped a rain god or something like that. I already know that you're objection to evolution is that you think that mutations destroy genetic information. I fail to understand how you can think this when, while mutations will often destroy some information it instantle 'creates' new information. If GVA mutates to GHA, then the V has been destroyed and the H has been created. Massive, massive oversimplification I know but I still think it shows my point.

I agree that Stanley and Miller's (I think thats right) experiment did not support a naturalistic explanation however I think you overestimate the magnitude of the 'problems' it places in front of it. Life ''as we know it'' requires optically-pure amino acids, but that may be only because life very quickly evolved to be able to produce its own pure amino acids and thus no longer needed to rely on impure, left and right handed, amino acids. Over time we lost the ability to use these impure acids. Look I know that may sound far-fetched but it didn't take much effort to show that their experiment really simply failed to provide any evidence either way.

Von Daniken! Thats him! Thankyou, yes I love that guys writing, sure it's probably all completely wrong, but its great fun to read. No, because, if I remember correctly, his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said about the story. It explained everything I think, like why Lot's wife became a pillar of salt, and why the angel hurried them out of the city, and why that city was chosen to be nuked or something. And while I definately don't believe any of it is true, it has just as much evidence to support it as the bibles version of events does which casts some doubt onto the Bible's claim to historical accuracy. As for Noah's ark, I still think it has something to do with the end of the last ice age or something like that. I can't prove it, I know. But most civilisations have different flood myths, and you'd think they'd all have the same if a worldwide complete flooding had happened and everyone on earth was descended from Moses. By the way, minor unimportant question, If Adam and Eve had two sons, one of whom killed the other, how did Cain have children? Sorry, it's just kinda bothered me ever since I heard that story... [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 07:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

: Yeah, I like to think I'm open-minded too, but I know plenty would disagree with that!
: Your example of the water cycle fails because, like life, you haven't shown that it ''did'' occur naturally (without design). I could also object on another ground, but that would be tantamount to defining complexity as something that can't occur naturally, which is a valid argument, but perhaps I won't use it right now.
: Your mutation example (also) fails because of a misunderstanding of what "information" is. [[Information]] is something that conveys ''meaning''. Words are information. So if you "mutate" "my name is Philip" to "my nsme is Philip", what new ''information'' is created? None. Rather, the information has been ''damaged'' (if not destroyed) (ignoring that our brains are smart enough to figure out what must have been intended). (And by the way, I created that mutation by "chance", by closing my eyes, cursoring back a few characters, and randomly pressing a key. I possibly ''could have'' created new information if I had ''intelligently designed'' the "mutation".) It is false to say that any change constitutes new information.
: Regarding Stanley and Miller's experiment, I already acknowledged that it doesn't rule out all possible explanations. But the point is that it is positive ''evidence'' opposed to the naturalistic position. Yes, perhaps it only rules out life ''as we know it'', but then it is this ''life that we know'' that we are talking about. It's an interesting characteristic of believers in naturalism that they claim to be scientific, but when scientific evidence is presented that opposes their ideas, they resort to ''ad hoc'' speculation to explain away the evidence. So, it's inaccurate to say that the experiment failed to produce any evidence either way. It didn't absolutely ''prove'' anything (and "scientific proof' is an oxymoron anyway), but it did produce ''evidence'' against a naturalistic explanation.
: Forgive me for being sceptical, but I don't give your claim that "his explanation actually didn't ignore anything that the bible said" much credibility when it is clear that your knowledge of the biblical account is somewhat lacking. See the following comments.
: As for Noah's flood, you wouldn't expect all the stories to be identical, as stories that are retold and retold verbally tend to change, often inadvertently, but sometimes deliberately (parents telling children using locations, creatures, etc. that they are familiar with rather than having to explain unfamiliar concepts). But it's still the case that there is a lot of similarity; too much to explain other than with a common origin. See [[Great Flood]] for more on this. And everybody on Earth is descended from ''Noah'', not Moses.
: The Bible records that after Cain killed Abel, they had another son, named Seth. So there's three sons, not two. Further, it also says that they had "other sons and daughters", so there's a lot more (Jewish tradition is two or three dozen of each, I believe), including potential wives for Cain. (How did he have children? The same way everyone else does: The Bible says that "Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant".) Now that may well raise another question in your mind, in which case I recommend that you read [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter8.pdf this].
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Don't know about open-minded, but I see you as a decent person, and what more can you do?
::True. Very true. I'm making assumptions. Well in that case I ask, what do you need for me to prove, as much as is possible, that it is indeed not designed. For example I can point to a water molecule and show that its properties allow it to exist easily as a liquid and a lighter than air gas. Hydrogen bonding and so on, gravity causing it to fall and so on. Also I can talk about Mars, and how it has been discovered that it snows there, which is part of the water cycle, and thus say that if it had been designed for Earth, why does it also work on Mars? Yet I'm not sure if this will satisfy you.
::Again, true. I apologise for misrepresenting your argument. You are right, however genetic information doesn't work like that either. Because genetic information creates proteins, a mutation of that gene could result in a protein with differing properties. Mostly these probably make little difference, however sometimes the difference is significant, or it is a significant difference (I didn't just repeat myself, I did reread it to check) and so it has an affect on the organism. You know that, or at least some of it and you don't believe the rest. So changing the information isn't the same as changing a letter in a sentence. It's more like changing an ingredient or an instruction in a recipe. It changes the taste, or the appearance (yeast in bread) but it is still relevant and the cake, or the bread, or the animal is different. Sometimes worse, sometimes better.
::Yeh I did kinda start postulating. Alright, I admit defeat on that one, Stanley and Miller's experiment did provide some evidence against a naturalistic explanation for the creation of life. I still believe that a naturalistic explanation is the best one, but I cannot argue against you here.
::Touche. Noah, not Moses. I apologise, that wasn't a mistake based on lack of knowledge or familiarity, but rather an honest slip. A stupid, honest slip. So I don't blame you. But I maintain that Von Danikin's story, myth, etc, was just as well supported by the Bible's evidence as the Christian story is. If you don't believe me, then don't, it doesn't bother me because I don't actually subscribe to Von Danikin's beliefs. But if you ever have the time to read his books, I do recomend them as they are great fun.
::Yes they wouldn't be identical, but I would at least expect them all to mention an ark, and remember the name 'Moses' as their ancestor and so on. I think the differences in the stories are far to great to allow for a single event, rather they point to a rise of sea levels or something similar that occurred around the world and affected a variety of peoples.
::Ok thanks, I read the link, that explains it. Well not the whole link, but it answered my questions anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain that. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 09:50, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

::Further experiments similar to the Urey-Miller experiments have been performed since then. Perhaps it's best to start with those, /recent/ studies than couching an entire argument in an experiment that we know today was not without flaws. It may also be best not to take out of context what the experiment meant to prove; that the building blocks of life could be created under circumstances (then) believed to be similar to those of ancient Earth. In this regard they were right; all that comes after is beyond the scope of the study in question.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 16:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

If you would like to play the logic game, heres a fun point of view. And your logic is still flawed.

1. The Creation of the universe is the most marvellous achievement imaginable.

2. The merit of an achievement is the product of its intrinsic quality and the ability of its creator.

3. The greater the disability of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.

4. The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.

5. Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existing creator we can conceive a greater being - namely one who created everything while not existing.

6 An existing God therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannot be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.

7. God does not exist.

Just to clear some things up, Nothing can be considered to be PROVEN in the term that a theory is only true until it is proven wrong. People like to say that things such as the big bang theory and evolution aren't true because they are just a theory. When in actuality, everything is a theory. Secondly you didn't seem to have read my other point, i said it can't be proven right, but also it continues to work until it is proven WRONG. In which case, you haven't proven my theory wrong, you pointed out that i dont have evidence, but the truth is, its true until proven wrong. My claim simply says that you need evidence before you can prove another theory wrong, or to prove yours is right. My evidence, look at the whole reason for debates and the scientific process. They are meant to find information on their subject and back it up so that it is evident that what they are saying is in fact logically possible or right.

Secondly, the big bang unlike God is something that has been debated and studied by scientists who spend their lives trying to understand the origins of the universe. The 'Nothingness' inside the singularity that started the big bang, has been recorded in other places in the universe, such as black holes. Its simple, the spec where the everything was inside was so infinity dense, that in technical terms is 'nothing'.

Science cannot study the 'supernatural' because it doesn't 'exist'. You claim that you cannot study god, and yet SOMEHOW the people that wrote the bible understood him? And Adam and Eve?

With your logic there we can say that since science cannot examine my imagination, im imagining that the world is a giant pillow. Since you can't go into my imagination and specifically EXAMINE the aspects of my realm, you cannot prove that its not real, therefore the world is but one giant pillow.

[[User:ChillinBM]]

:Haha I like that logic, although its not very hard for a creationist to dismiss. I think though, despite the fact that I agree with you Chillin, you are more likely to get your point across if you put it a bit less aggressively. Christians are humans too! In all seriousness though, a debate is a lot more enjoyable if everyone is courteous despite disagreements. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 22:30, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

How can you prove that the water cycle is not designed? You can't, because you were not there when it began, and neither do you know of anybody who was (except God, but we're ignoring him for this exercise). What you need to do is to find an example where its origin ''was'' observed, so that there is documentation of just how it came about. Now don't even think of claiming that there are no examples of complex things forming without anybody being there to observe them, because there are plenty being formed all the time, such as machines, books (the arrangement of letters is complex), and so on. Yeah, okay, they are things that humans have created, so they don't count as being undesigned—''but that's the point: all the examples we '''know''' of were designed''!

The difference between English (for example) words and genetic information doesn't change things. I'll explain. In English, words can be any (reasonable) length, and not all combinations of letters are used. This is unlike DNA where each "word" is three characters, and all 64 combinations are used. However, this is not the whole story. In English, it's not just the letters that have to be right, but the words, sentences, and paragraphs. Just suppose that every possible "mutation" of an English word produced another English word. That "mutated" word will still not make sense in the sentence. Similarly with DNA. A mutation will form another "word" (rather than nonsense), which will equate to a particular amino acid, but will the resulting protein make sense? Or the molecule which incorporates that protein? No. So you haven't really solved the problem.

Some changes are indeed like changing an ingredient in a recipe. The genes for recognising smells and viruses work this way I believe. But that's because the recipe for the fruit cake can accept any fruit. It can't accept rat poison being substituted for raisins, for example.

As for mentioning Moses when Noah was meant, I can understand and accept a simple mistake (and that's one that many make). (But then you made the ''same'' mistake in your reply!) However, it wasn't just that simple mistake, but ''also'' the mistake of claiming that Adam and Eve only had two sons. One simple mistake—a simple slip. Two mistakes, with one being more than just the wrong name—I question your familiarity.

I think that you expect too much in what you would expect the flood legends to include, and especially if you think that they would have the same words for them. The word "ark", from memory, basically means "box". The Greek account on the [[Great Flood]] page refers to a "chest". Is that really any different, when you allow for different languages, cultures, and etc.? And the Hawaiian account has "Nuu" in place of "Noah". That could easily be a version of the same name. And by the way, that page only has a small sampling of the similarities. Yet even so, there are some parallels that I consider remarkable. Why would independently-invented flood stories have a bird being sent out to see if the flood had subsided? That doesn't even seem to make that much sense, except in the case of Noah's Ark which may not have offered a view of the surroundings. Yet a number of stories have it. One of the birds that Noah sent out was a dove, and at least one of the other accounts specifically has a dove. And why the promise of the rainbow? It's understandable that a rainbow might be associated with a flood story, and even that the rainbow might be a ''reminder'' of the flood. But why would the rainbow be a sign that a similar flood would not happen again, per the Australian aboriginal account quoted?

To '''Jirby''':

Do any of those more recent studies actually show anything more substantial? And in one point you are right: the experiments were done assuming certain conditions then believed to be the case on ancient Earth. Specifically, they assumed an oxygen-free atmosphere, because that was the belief, because an atmosphere containing oxygen would have destroyed the molecules being formed. But the view now is that the atmosphere had oxygen, which means that the experiment showed that they wouldn't get the right amino acids ''even assuming an atmosphere more favourable than would have existed''.

To '''ChillinBM''':

As Bolly says, your logic is easy to dismiss. Points 5 and 6 are pure nonsense, and even if true, point 7 doesn't follow from the previous points.

A theory is not "true" until it is proven wrong. It cannot (correctly) be proven wrong unless it ''is'' wrong, in which case it could not have also been ''true''. And no, not ''everything'' is a theory. Some things are merely hypotheses, and some things are fact (such as my name being Philip).

Yes, some people do like to say that evolution is "just a theory", but this argument ''is specifically rejected by leading creationists''[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996/84/#just_theory] (and I hope Ajkgordon will bother to clarify his misleading claims in that regard).

God has also been debated and studied by many people, including scientists, so the Big Bang is not "unlike God" in that respect at all.

Black holes are not "nothingness"; they are ''something''. Note in the following view from Big Bang expert (he invented one of the Big Bang versions) Alan Guth it does not say that stuff came from black holes or anything similar, but from "absolutely nothing":
{{QuoteBox|The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2507]}}

Science cannot study the supernatural because the scientific method and its tools are only capable of studying ''physical'' stuff; not because the supernatural doesn't exist. I didn't say that you cannot study God. I said that ''science'' can't study God. But science is not the only way to learn things. We can study God because He has told us much about Himself, and because He came to Earth in human form 2000 years ago, and in other similar ways. And Adam and Eve, who had freshly-created brains without any flaws, knew Him personally.

Your last paragraph is illogical, and not the same logic I'm using. There are two flaws, if I understand you correctly. First, you seem to be arguing that because I can't examine ''your imagination'', therefore I can't examine ''the world'' to see if your imagination is providing correct information. This is nonsense. Second, not being able to prove that something is not real doesn't mean that it ''is'' real. I'm not claiming that God is real simply because you can't prove He's not. If that's what you think, you've read your own preconceptions into what I said.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.

:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.

:- God doesn't exist.

:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.

:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

:::Ahh! Noah/Moses! I do apologise again. That was just plain ridiculous. Maybe the very fact I got it wrong once means I was more likely to get it wrong again? I don't know. Well you don't have to believe me, and it has been a while since I did last read it, maybe I'm becoming forgetful.....maybe I have Moses on my brain. I wonder why?

:::Chillin does actually have a point though. He's using the ontological argument against itself, which, if you don't buy into that argument, is pointless.

:::The recipe analogy does work though, because a cake made from rat poison would not 'survive'. A fruit cake could indeed have chocolate substituted and it might still work and be tasty. The protein doesn't have to 'make sense' because it only has to perform a simple function, with complex results. Regardless of how it performs, or fails to perform, its task, it still has an affect on the organism. So any viable permutation of the DNA will have a 'meaning'. [[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 00:14, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Arguing with me is fine, but i wont be able to show the evidence as well as the people on the forum i just submited as well because i do not study the topics as well as them. If you dont want to go there, its you choice, but it shows that you dont want to deal with who really knows more information. Just so you know, I study both, i've seen the christian view, went to church and christian school for my elementary years. Just doesn't seem logical to me, too many contradictions.

By the model of god put from the bible god should be omnipotent, and omniscience, there should be NOTHING that exists that can be more powerful than him. In which case, he cannot exists, because if he did exist, he wouldn't have the most power, because if something were to create the universe from a nonexistance, it would be more powerful than him.

By the way, I love your responses, quoting everything i say and put a simple 'nonsense' or 'doesn't make sense' next to it. Maybe thats how we should explain everything in the world.

Science is the simple step of anylizing anything. In this case, this 'anything' is supposedly nothing. I have a question for those who say that we cannot examine god. If it cannot be examed, how can it happen? Logically, if something is afflicted by god, god has to use something existing, or physical to alter what is happening in the physical world, in which case, non of it has been found nor detected in any manner.

And we seem to still miss the question, If god has been here from the beginning of time, who created time? Who created God? How come people can always say 'well what happend before the big bang?' but yet they cant face thier own problem of 'well what happend before god?'

[[User:ChillinBM]]
For all those of you out there who are biblical literalists. How do you explain away the various discrepancies between what is written in the bible and what has been documented to have happened on earth? For example, how does one explain the great flood that clearly didn't happen? Or explain away the existence of an ARC that we, today, could not create (I mean you could build it but it wouldn't stay together in a class six Beaufort storm not to mention the kind of conditions required to flood the entire world). A wooden boat of that size would either sink, flood or fall apart depending on how one built it (there is no optimal design here, run it through auto cad and stress testing software if you don't believe me). If the bible is not literally true, then, why believe anything written? I mean if it is the only source for various things that Christians believe while the times when it is not the only source it is generally proven incorrect, then why trust it when it is the sole source? I can understand using it as a guideline to direct "morale' behavior but taking the bible literally is just silly.

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]