Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Earth

2014-12-18T06:19:30Z

DevilDog: age of the earth

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (28th April, 2008)

'''''The following (shaded) discussion was moved from [[talk:Main Page]].'''''
<div style="background:#eee">
== Where does Wikipedia get it's sources on the Earth's age and related date estimates ==

Articles like Earth basically state for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old, but from what I've read the reason that scientists get those measurements is because they purposely use unreliable dating methods that give them the results they want to get. But I'm sure they're are published sources that give more accurate (and younger ages). Where are all these sources, and why don't we work together and take back Wikipedia from the evolutionists who are trying to censor these alternate views.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:46, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:[http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html Wikipedia's source] says this:

:"The ages of Earth and Moon rocks and of meteorites are measured by the decay of long-lived radioactive isotopes of elements that occur naturally in rocks and minerals and that decay with half lives of 700 million to more than 100 billion years to stable isotopes of other elements. These dating techniques, which are firmly grounded in physics and are known collectively as radiometric dating, are used to measure the last time that the rock being dated was either melted or disturbed sufficiently to rehomogenize its radioactive elements."
:{{unsigned|JJones}}

:: That's circular reasoning, which many [[liberals]] fall for. Stating that something has a half life of 700 million years, which of course has never been observed, is to assume what is being "proven": that something is 700+ million years old. There is no reason to assume that decay rates have been constant over the life of the universe, and every reason to assume they have not been constant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm not hip to this, actually... what reason is there to believe that the laws of physics have changed over the course of time? That seems like a pretty incredible thing to suggest, since any alteration in any of the constants that hold the universe together would have resulted in a total collapse of all matter, excepting the fine structure constant which appears to have been increasing gradually over six billion years (as indicated by the absorption lines of quasars of varying distances). It of course can be pointed out that our perception of the laws of physics have changed, for example when Newtonian dynamics as detailed in ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' was overturned on the quantum level. But if Planck's constant had changed over the course of time to any degree, the quantization and hence reality of electrons would have been impossible. If the permitivity of empty space was any larger, too, then every particle would explode. Maybe you could link to what you are speaking of?--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:35, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Urban67, the value of science is that it is always open to scrutiny and improvement as it looks to explain the workings of the universe around us. Theories for how to date the age of objects can be proposed and then tested, and if proven to be wrong later, revised and replaced with better methods. The methods used in various dating approaches, like Uranium-Lead dating, are based on scientific observations of the behavior of elements, and those properties are then used to date objects. The key to these methods is that they follow the scientific method, and their results can be tested and verified independently by anyone, and more importantly, cross-checked against other methods that date in the same range. So, if three different radiometric dating approaches all date the same blind sample to the same period of time within an acceptable margin of error, then only two conclusions can be drawn - the methods are generally accurate and reliable, or they all suffer from the same anomaly that makes them unreliable, despite the fact that they are ''different'' methods. ASchafly assumes that decay rates have not been constant over time without providing scientific evidence. Personally, it seems more rational to assume that the intrinsic properties of elements have not changed over time - gold always behaves as gold, and uranium always behaves as uranium. What's also important to consider is that while completely different dating methods can correlate to each other and show old-earth dates to be valid, there has not been a set of independent scientific dating methods that consistently cross-check to each other and show the maximum age of any object to be no older than the young-earth assumptions of thousands of years. I'd suggest that instead of focusing on Wikipedia or Conservapedia, you do some research on the underlying science to reach your own conclusions - the exercise is its own reward. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:04, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: Circular reasoning can fool many people. Assume something has a half-life of 700 million years and - voila! - you've just "proven" that the universe is older than 700 millions. That is, you've proven to someone easily fooled by circular reasoning. I'll add circular reasoning to the [[liberal gullibility]] list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:56, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Circular reasoning can fool many people. Argue that the Bible is literal truth, and when they ask for proof, point to... the Bible! Voila! I'd add that to the [[Conservative gullibility]] page, except that we don't have one here and never will.
:::::::FYI, the radioactive decay rate is calculatable from the strong and weak nuclear forces. If either of those changed even a little, the sun would either go out or '''go nova''', which I think would be slightly noticeable. This is why I like science--it works off of the basic assumption that the universe is not trying to trick us. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: Gulik5, you're chasing your own tail with [[circular reasoning]] here, assuming the validity of what you claim to "prove". Circular reasoning fools many people, but not so many here. As one goes backwards in time and approaches the origin of the universe, energies, decay rates, and physical laws inevitably were different, as even [[atheistic]] scientists themselves concede. But determined to cling to a belief in an old universe, you seem to be in denial about that.

:::::::: This is logic and has nothing to do with the [[Bible]]. I haven't seen logic fail yet, and encourage you to consider it with an open mind. If you won't, I'm confident other readers here will. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: I don't agree that "As one goes backwards in time and approaches the origin of the universe, energies, decay rates, and physical laws inevitably were different". I see no reason to suppose that physical laws were ever different, and I think nobody proposes that they were, except for some scientists who propose that they were different in the first few microseconds after the supposed Big Bang. That is, apart from that proposal (with which I disagree), everyone believes that physical laws have remained constant, rather than changing over time. Second, although some creationary scientists have concluded that decay rates have varied in the past (i.e. the RATE team), even they don't propose that they have changed in some sort of way related to the age of the universe, as your comment seems to be saying. However, to agree with you, yes scientists do propose a change in the physical laws (as mentioned) when it suits them, but deny it otherwise. Further, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, I see no reason to suppose that a claim about variations in decay rates means a change in physical laws, as opposed to an incomplete understanding of those physical laws. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:42, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Given that all agree that the laws of physics were different as one gets close in time to the origin universe, it is a logical absurdity to then pretend the laws have always been the same and draw conclusions based on that implausible assumption. Those who insist on doing that are simply assuming what they are trying to prove. They're chasing their own tail.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)</div>

::::::::::: But the point is that ''not all'' agree that the laws of physics were different as one get close in time to the origin of the universe. The only people who do think that, as far as I know, are Big Bang cosmologists (and anyone who accepts what those scientists say) who accept it for the first few microseconds after the Big Bang. God created the laws of physics as part of His creation, and being a consistent God, does not change them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
<div style="background:#eee">
I don't know, everyone here arguing about the validity of radiometric dating and nobody actually points out to Urban67 that our [[Earth]] article ''doesn't'' "state for a fact that the Earth is billions of years old"! Unlike the biased Wikipedia, our article covers both uniformitarian and creationary views.

Claiming that something has a half life of x doesn't mean that the world is at least x years old. [http://thelongestlistofthelongeststuffatthelongestdomainnameatlonglast.com/long293.html This site] says that the element with the longest half-life is an isotope of Selenium, with a half-life of 130,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. This doesn't mean that the Earth is at least that old. All this means is that, even according to uniformitarian dating, no SE-82 has decayed even part of one half life yet.

Nobody has yet explained to me why a change in the rate of decay means that the laws of physics have changed. If we find evidence of half-lives changing, surely it just means that we don't understand the physics of it properly yet, not that the laws of physics have changed. TomMoore mentioned the change in the fine-structure constant as though this was an exception to the rule, but until uniformitarian scientists found reason to believe that this had changed, if a creationist proposed that it had, they would have been given the same answer: you're claiming that the laws of physics have changed.

The problem with the claim that science is always open to scrutiny is that it is ''not'' open to scrutiny if that scrutiny supports a creationist or ID point of view (see [[suppression of alternatives to evolution]]). Further, dating methods are ''not'' testable (except as I'll mention in a moment), as nobody can go back into the past to check out the results. Dating methods are testable by comparing dates that they produce against objects of ''known age'', but objects of ''known age'' only date back a few thousand years (i.e. within recorded history), so that rules out almost every date except some C14 dates. And many tests done with other methods on items of known dates have falsified the methods: For example, testing rocks formed during volcanic eruptions in the last century or so returning dates up to millions of years old! PDinsdale is correct that comparing three methods which give the same results means either that they work or that they suffer from the same problem, but dismisses the latter too quickly. Yes, they are different methods, but in most cases all involve radioactive decay. And it also overlooks that such testing often produces ''different'' results, such as (a) tests done by the [http://www.icr.org/rate/ RATE] team have shown that radioactive decay dates don't match the amount of helium produced by that decay retained in the rocks, (b) scientists using different methods and arriving at different dates, such as occurred with [[Mungo Man]], and (c) numerous anomalous results, such as C14 dating of wood in basalt from the Crinum mine in Queensland giving a very different age to the date of the basalt holding the wood.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/731]

Creationists says that the dating methods are not reliable, so expecting the methods to show ages consistent with the creationary view is not reasonable as it requires one to assume that the methods are reliable. Perhaps PDinsdale would benefit from some reading of his own so that he understands just what the problems and objections are.

And Andy is correct that circular reasoning is involved, albeit not in the way he describes. C14 dating, for example, ''assumes'' that the level of C14 in the atmosphere was not altered by Noah's Flood (because Noah's Flood was presumed to not have happened), and dates derived from C14 dating are then used to argue that some artifacts are older than the Flood, and that this therefore disproves the Flood.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:47, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

Oh, one more. The charge that Christians employ circular reasoning to support the truth of the Bible is something that I see as a sceptic charge far more than I actually see Christians actually doing, if I've ever seen it at all. Rather, it's more of a (typical of bibliosceptics) straw-man tactic than a real phenomenon. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:54, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks, Philip, for responding with some logic and evidence instead of the rhetoric and accusations of "liberal gullibility" in the other response. I believe in the value of Occam's Razor in cases like this - the simplest, least convoluted explanation is usually the truth, or at least a lot closer to the truth than not. It's simpler to assume decay rates are constant when there's no proof to date that they're not. It's simpler to expect carbon levels to be consistent than to expect the Biblical Flood to have affected them in exactly the way needed to make the young-earth numbers work. It's simpler to accept the correlation of moon-rock dates with old-earth dates, because moon rocks are not affected by terrestrial events, floods or otherwise. It's also simpler to tie in the correlation of astronomical observations and teh speed of light, instead of assuming the latter changed as well. I'm not claiming radiometric data to be perfect, and when you encounter anomalous findings like the ones cited above, there needs to be a better understanding of why they happened (bad test controls, contamination, a misunderstanding of the theory, which now has to be revised, etc.) When science hits results like these it just examines and corrects itself, and improves the understanding of the universe through the process. Finally, at the risk of offending many here, Gulik5 does have a point about circular reasoning and the Bible - many articles relating to the validity of YEC rely on the Bible for proof and not science, so using the Bible to validate YEC views that come from the Bible is, in fact, a form of circular reasoning. Let's see a consistent, cross-verifiable, science-based validation of the YEC theory and I'm open to being convinced. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:31, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I've no problem with using Occam's Razor (as long as one remembers that it's a ''guide'' not a ''law''), but I do question whether what you consider the "simplest" explanation really is the simplest.

:: You say that there's "no proof" that decay rates are not constant, but there ''is'', in fact, considerable evidence that they are not, which I briefly touched on. See also sections 1 and 2 of [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] regarding "evidence" and "proof". Further, the problem is not just with the decay rates, but the assumptions used in dating (see [[Radiometric dating]]). Actually, my reference to "considerable evidence" in this paragraph should have been that there is considerable evidence that the methods are unreliable, but only some of that evidence relates to decay rates, whilst some relates to the assumptions involved.

:: Your line about "expect[ing] the Biblical Flood to have affected [C14 levels] in exactly the way needed to make the young-earth numbers work" is a loaded one. It implies an extraordinary co-incidence, where none in intended. It's a straightforward argument that ''if'' a global flood occurred as described in the Bible, then C14 levels ''would have been'' affected (in a particular way, i.e. by making C14 dates appear older than they should), and it's a fact that C14 dates don't take this into account, therefore using C14 dates to argue against the Flood ''is'' circular reasoning. So when you said that "It's simpler to expect carbon levels to be consistent than to expect the Biblical Flood to have affected them in exactly the way needed to make the young-earth numbers work", what you really should have said is that "It's simpler to expect carbon levels to be consistent than to expect the Biblical Flood to have affected them". But putting it that way makes the fallacy clearer: Why assume constancy of C14 levels with a global flood? What you are really doing assuming no global flood (in which case assuming constancy of C14 levels makes some sense), but I reject that no global flood is what one would expect from Occams Razor.

:: As for the moon-rock dates, if ''something'' affected decay rates, it's ''simpler'' to assume that decay rates would have been affected universally, rather than just on Earth, is it not? More to the point, whether or not decay rates on the moon were affected would depend on ''what'' effected them, and as we don't yet know that, we really can't say one way or the other.

:: Astronomical explanations have little to do with terrestrial dates. Yes, uniformitarian dates from both fields are inconsistent with biblical accounts, but that's about where the similarity ends. The universe is supposed to be around 14,000 million years old, and the Earth about 4,500 million, so although the two are not inconsistent, it can hardly be said that one confirms the other. Further, as [[starlight problem]] points out, the uniformitarian explanation has the same sort of problem that the YEC explanation has regarding astronomical ages, so Occam's Razor is not much use there.

:: Your story about how science corrects itself is all well and nice, but when it comes to YEC explanations, it doesn't work, because YEC explanations are ruled out ''a priori''. So radiometric dates are clung to despite the problems, because to give them up would be to concede that YECs might have a point. It's easy to throw around explanations like bad test controls, contamination, etc., but (a) anomalous dates have already been checked for these, so these are not the explanation, and (b) these sorts of <s>explanations</s> excuses are generally only invoked when dates don't match expectations, while if the dates ''do'' match expectations, they are considered to be reliable. That's ''uniformitarian'' expectations, of course, which is a source of bias.

:: Like Gulik5, you are incorrect about the circular reasoning. YECs do not rely on the Bible for independent proof of their ideas. Yes, they ''get'' their ideas from the Bible, and they argue that the Bible is a valid reliable source of information, but they don't employ the circular logic of then using the Bible to ''prove'' those ideas. As I said, that is merely a bibliosceptic (or in this case, anti-creationist) straw-man argument. Further, YECs point out that we are dealing with unique events in ''history'', which are not available for scientific observation, repeatable experimentation, etc., so are strictly outside the realm of empirical science, ''and that exactly the same applies to molecules-to-man evolution'', so expecting YEC views to be "scientifically validated" is asking for the impossible and is therefore being unreasonable.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Those are some interesting points, Philip, and I have my reading cut out for me. That said, I'm not ruling out the ''possibility'' that the Biblical Flood occurred, or that the earth may in fact only be around 6,000 years old. I don't dismiss repeatable scientific evidence when it radically contradicts the current understandings, either. Einstein's theories were radical in that way to his contemporaries, but proven over time. Elements of quantum theory can seem almost mystical, too, but follow consistent mathematical principles that can be tested - the ones that hold up are retained,and the ones that don't modified or replaced with ones that fit the evidence better. I don't rule out the YEC explanation out of hand, but when I read the [[starlight problem]] article, I was struck with the same impression - that of people who don't want to accept the generally-accepted evidence that contradicts the YEC view, and propose one theory after another that not only seem unlikely, but in some cases are impossible to prove one way or another because they rely on assumed supernatural intervention (like God stretching spacetime after creation). When you apply Occam's Razor, it's easier to accept that light and gravity have always behaved the way they're consistently measured to do, than to assume that God changed the rules at some point, for reasons unknown to us, just so the measurements we make today can still conform to a YEC timeframe. Finally, I have a problem with the view expressed by some here that science is unreliable when applied to historical problems, like ancient dating, because no one was there to correlate the results. That's dismissive of many elements of physics and chemistry that we accept and live by in other aspects of daily life (electronics, nuclear power, space travel and satellite communications for example). Controversies regarding the content of Arab textbooks regarding Jews, or Japanese textbooks omitting references to WWII atrocities, are contemporary examples of written history being subjective, and not conforming to reality. Conservapedia's own article on the [[Bible]] shows differences between the Jewish and Christian versions of the Old Testament, and the changing nature of the Christian Bible as it was revised and translated. We may not be able to witness events before our lifetime, but if I had to rely on a young-earth or old-earth viewpoint backed by science that I can measure and test today, or the historic writings of men I never knew, I'd choose the findings of science. I've never understood why one can't accept an old-earth view AND the wisdom in the Bible at the same time. The science in the Bible doesn't have to be accurate for the lessons in values to be. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

I am going to respond to PJR, since as usual he is the only one meeting an argument with reason and support, rather than rhetoric. I gotta tell you, PJR, I think you're on the wrong side of just about every issue, but I respect that you always have well-thought-out reasons for being there. I am abandoning Occam's Razor, since it is generally misunderstood as the "simplest explanation" sort of thing and never really convinced anyone of anything.

''Claiming that something has a half life of x doesn't mean that the world is at least x years old... All this means is that, even according to uniformitarian dating, no SE-82 has decayed even part of one half life yet.''

This is true. There are isotopes of several elements that would take more than the current life of the universe to have decayed by half. No claim can be made that the length of half-life of an element means that the universe must be that old. However, it does help us verify it in other ways. If we examine the chemical composition of the most distant protostars, for example, we will find that it consists partially of one element and partially of the element into which it decays as it breaks down, and the proportion conforms to exactly what we would expect if it had been decaying for billions of years since the star-formation process was disrupted.

''Nobody has yet explained to me why a change in the rate of decay means that the laws of physics have changed. If we find evidence of half-lives changing, surely it just means that we don't understand the physics of it properly yet, not that the laws of physics have changed.''

Radioactive elements decay because they are shedding electrons, basically. Their unstable structure is unable to hold itself together, and so it fires off atoms. The time this occurs is random when applied to an individual atom, but a mass of them reflects a fundamental trend of decay which accords with the complexity of the atom and strength with which it retains its structure. If the rate of decay were to change, it would mean that the fundamental forces that hold together atoms would have changed. If atoms began decaying more quickly, it would mean that the strong nuclear force was weaker. That's as best I can explain it, but I believe it expresses my point... atoms decay according to the most fundamental laws of physics, and any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter.

''TomMoore mentioned the change in the fine-structure constant as though this was an exception to the rule, but until uniformitarian scientists found reason to believe that this had changed, if a creationist proposed that it had, they would have been given the same answer: you're claiming that the laws of physics have changed.''

It does indeed seem to be the exception in the rule, if it pans out properly (as it appears it will). But more to the point, it was discovered through an empirical and repeatable test. If any creationist had done that test, no one would try to gainsay them because it would be science. But creationists do precious little to explore further, generally concentrating on attacking evolution. This is for ideologically understandable reasons, but it does mean the number of actively researching creationist physicists is tiny (if extant at all).

''And many tests done with other methods on items of known dates have falsified the methods''

This is generally not true, according to everything I have read. While there have been unusual exceptions, which are seized upon by critics, for the most part results tend to correlate and are consistent with each other.

''C14 dating, for example, ''assumes'' that the level of C14 in the atmosphere was not altered by Noah's Flood (because Noah's Flood was presumed to not have happened), and dates derived from C14 dating are then used to argue that some artifacts are older than the Flood, and that this therefore disproves the Flood.''

While this is clever, it fails a close examination. Consider:

If the amount of C14 was so hugely greater prior to the Flood, that would mean that during that brief period of time between Creation and the Flood (a thousand years? Two thousand?) that all plants would be fixing that huge amount as part of photosynthesis, and accordingly that animals would imbibe it as well. So what we would have would be a pretty interesting trend whenever we dated anything... if it was older than the Flood, it would contain a consistently huge level of C14 that varied only slightly, and if it was younger it would contain a much smaller. In other words, the graph would look like a single stair, rather than a sloping trend downwards. Any single event that changed the atmosphere is reflected in all evidence of that atmosphere. The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
</div>

:Replying to PDinsdale:
:"''...when I read the starlight problem article, I was struck with the same impression - that of people who don't want to accept the generally-accepted evidence that contradicts the YEC view, and propose one theory after another that not only seem unlikely, but in some cases are impossible to prove one way or another...''": Why do their ideas "seem unlikely"? I'd suggest that it's only because it's not the ruling paradigm. To me, it seems extremely unlikely that nothing would become something for no reason (i.e. the Big Bang), but it probably doesn't ''seem'' unlikely to you simply because that's the idea that you are use to and have come to accept. And much of the Big Bang hypothesis is impossible to prove one way or another also. And the YEC views also "follow consistent mathematical principles". In fact, Russell Humphreys said of his idea that it was based on exactly the same science as the Big Bang, but simply had a different starting assumption. Where the Big Bang ''assumes'' an unbounded universe, Humphrey's assumed a bounded universe. His cosmology then simply "fell out" of the science following that assumption. It also seems unlikely that up to 99% (I think the figure is) of the universe cannot be seen. That is, in order for the Big Bang model to work, cosmologists have to propose that up to 99% of the universe comprises 'dark matter', and some 'dark energy': matter and energy that we are unable to detect. In other words, an enormous (universe-sized!) fudge factor! Apply Occam's Razor to that!
:"''...to prove one way or another because they rely on assumed supernatural intervention (like God stretching spacetime after creation).''": Is that any worse that relying on unseen matter and energy? Once you allow for God being involved, then you must allow for Him "intervening". YECs are not in the habit, however, of invoking God simply to answer unanswerable conundrums. They only invoke Him where it can be justified, such as (as in this case) when the Bible explicitly says that He did something.
:"''When you apply Occam's Razor, it's easier to accept that light and gravity have always behaved the way they're consistently measured to do..''": Yeah? Humphreys' and Hartnett's cosmologies have light and gravity behaving the way that they are consistently measured to do. The Big Bang, by contrast, has fudges to make it work, such as proposing that the laws of physics were different for the first few microseconds and that light travelled faster than is measured to solve the [[horizon problem]].
:"''...than to assume that God changed the rules at some point...''": Well, that's kind of the point: YEC ideas have God ''not'' changing the rules, unlike the Big Bang scenario.
:"''...so the measurements we make today can still conform to a YEC timeframe''": That's putting things back to front. If God ''did'' create the universe the way that the Bible says and YECs propose, then God didn't change the rules so that measurements conform to a YEC timeframe. Rather, the measurements conform to a YEC timeframe ''because that's the way things happened''! You are, in effect, assuming the YEC view is wrong then trying to rationalise why the measurements made on that basis conform to that view that you've rejected!
: "''Finally, I have a problem with the view expressed by some here that science is unreliable when applied to historical problems, like ancient dating, because no one was there to correlate the results. That's dismissive of many elements of physics and chemistry that we accept and live by in other aspects of daily life ...''": Not at all. Dating methods involve ''measurements'' '''and''' ''assumptions''. It is the ''assumptions'' that are being questioned, not the measurements. If you'd read and understood [[radiometric dating]], you would know this, and not be claiming that questioning the dates means questioning the ''measurements''.
: "''..if I had to rely on a young-earth or old-earth viewpoint backed by science that I can measure and test today, or the historic writings of men I never knew, I'd choose the findings of science.''": If I had to rely on the untestable declarations about the past made by scientists who weren't there verses the infallible Word of the God who was there, I'd choose what God says. Your comparison with history written by fallible men is an invalid comparison.
: "''...the changing nature of the Christian Bible as it was revised and translated...''": What changing nature?
: "''I've never understood why one can't accept an old-earth view AND the wisdom in the Bible at the same time. The science in the Bible doesn't have to be accurate for the lessons in values to be.''": Because if it gets the factual history wrong, why trust it on the wisdom? "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" {{Bible ref|John|5:46-47|NIV}} "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" {{Bible ref|John|3|12|NIV}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:09, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:Replying to TomMoore:
:"''...PJR, I think you're on the wrong side of just about every issue, but I respect that you always have well-thought-out reasons for being there.''": Thanks. I don't want to seem ungrateful, but I continually get frustrated at anti-creationists arguing against an idea that they clearly haven't studied sufficiently, or in many cases apparently not at all (except from anti-creationist sources).
:"''If we examine the chemical composition of the most distant protostars, for example, we will find that it consists partially of one element and partially of the element into which it decays as it breaks down, and the proportion conforms to exactly what we would expect if it had been decaying for billions of years...''": Which is entirely consistent with YEC cosmologies that propose that billions of years have passed out in space whilst six days passed on Earth.
:"''atoms decay according to the most fundamental laws of physics, and any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter.''": So all other possible explanations, including presumably ones that have not yet been thought of, have been ruled out? I think what would be more accurate to say would be "...''as far as we know at the moment'' any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter", which doesn't rule out other possibilities that haven't been thought of yet. Scientists have previously claimed that the rate of decay can't change, yet (minor) changes in the rates of decay ''have'' been observed.
: "''But more to the point, it was discovered through an empirical and repeatable test''": As is the case with creationist research on radiometric dating methods.
: "''If any creationist had done that test, no one would try to gainsay them because it would be science.''": Hah! When Barry Setterfield proposed a change in the speed of light, "the main anti-creationist (and progressive creationist) argument was the supposed constancy of fundamental laws ... [a change in the Fine Structure Constant] would supposedly solve some problems with the ‘big bang’ theory. Apparently, this is OK for the big bang—it’s only wrong to question established theories when this is done to support Biblical creation, it seems!"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430].
: "''But creationists do precious little to explore further, generally concentrating on attacking evolution. This is for ideologically understandable reasons, but it does mean the number of actively researching creationist physicists is tiny (if extant at all).''": The only reason that "precious little" research is done and that the "number of actively researching creationist physicists is tiny" is that they don't have access to the funds that uniformitarians and evolutionists have. Yet they do what research they can manage.
: "''This is generally not true, according to everything I have read.''": Then your reading has been one-sided, I'd suggest.
: "''While there have been unusual exceptions, which are seized upon by critics, for the most part results tend to correlate and are consistent with each other.''": Tend to correlate with what? And are consistent with what? The point that you were replying to said, "...many tests done with other methods ''on items of known dates'' have falsified the methods". Most dating is not done on items of known ages. I've ''often'' had said to me that this is because those items are "too young" to measure. Now you're trying to tell me that many such tests have been done, successfully?
: "''If the amount of C14 was so hugely greater prior to the Flood...''": Actually, the amount of C14 would be ''much less'' prior to the flood. C14 dating is done by measuring the C12:C14 ratio, and the ''less'' C14, the older the item is presumed to be. So ''more'' C14 prior to the flood would make the items appear ''younger''.
: "''...In other words, the graph would look like a single stair, rather than a sloping trend downwards.''": Not unless the C12:C14 ratio ''suddenly'' changed at the time of the flood. Rather, it would take time to change, as new C14 was being formed. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf this].
: "''The evidence absolutely contradicts your theory.''": On the contrary, that last link mentions some anomalous dates that could be explained by allowing for the effects of the flood. Further, every test for C14 in coal and diamonds shows that they still have C14, which they should not if they were as old as supposed. Again, empirical, repeatable, tests, arranged by creationary scientists, but usually rejected solely because they support a YEC age, usually with various ''ad hoc'' explanations that are only invoked in these cases (i.e. special pleading), and ones that often don't stand scrutiny (for example, you can't get contaminant C14 into the crystal structure of a diamond).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

''Which is entirely consistent with YEC cosmologies that propose that billions of years have passed out in space whilst six days passed on Earth.''
I have heard some YEC claim that the whole universe was created at the same time, including the Earth. What exactly is the hypothesis here? Would it be fairly stated as, "The universe was created by God in its current form billions of years ago, and the Earth was created six thousand years ago"?

''So all other possible explanations, including presumably ones that have not yet been thought of, have been ruled out? I think what would be more accurate to say would be "...''as far as we know at the moment'' any change in the former would have to be because of a change in the latter", which doesn't rule out other possibilities that haven't been thought of yet. Scientists have previously claimed that the rate of decay can't change, yet (minor) changes in the rates of decay ''have'' been observed.''

Of course. Let it be assumed in the future that when I speak of something as "must" or a "certainty" when talking about such things, it is according to everything we currently know in science. No science is sacrosanct, of course, so nothing is absolute. But logic and everything we currently understand indicates the above conclusion. It's possible that later we will learn something new that contradicts our current understanding. And at that time, it will be warranted to create hypotheses based upon that new data. But you don't create the hypotheses and assume that your current data must be flawed.

''When Barry Setterfield proposed a change in the speed of light, "the main anti-creationist (and progressive creationist) argument was the supposed constancy of fundamental laws ... [a change in the Fine Structure Constant] would supposedly solve some problems with the ‘big bang’ theory. Apparently, this is OK for the big bang—it’s only wrong to question established theories when this is done to support Biblical creation, it seems!"[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430].''

From what I can find, Setterfield did just that... "proposed" it. He didn't have any evidence or reason to believe it, except that he wanted to do so and it would help justify his preconceived notions. There is a great deal of evidence and reason to believe that the speed of light is constant, and so evidence to contradict that must be proportionately large as well.

I am sure there must be some prejudice against creationist theories in science, and it is unfortunate. But it is also understandable. The creationist "theory" is always that God created everything at some unagreed-upon point... and the mechanism for arriving at that conclusion changes according to what seems like might be true. It's not very good science. Imagine a phrenologist arguing with neurologists for the legitimacy of his position: he could use most of the same arguments a creationist uses. "We don't ''know'' that the shape of the head doesn't indicate certain aspects of personality. We should be open to that possibility and the controversy should be taught to children. The fact that the hypothalamus can lead to subdural pressure if it becomes hyperactive means that the same thing that Bob Phrenologist proposed forty years ago is true... but apparently it's only okay if a neurologist says it!"

''Then your reading has been one-sided, I'd suggest.''

In the sense that you intend, that is accurate. I am crippled by my insistence on only reading reputable publications like ''Scientific American'' and ''Nature.''

''Tend to correlate with what? And are consistent with what? The point that you were replying to said, "...many tests done with other methods ''on items of known dates'' have falsified the methods". Most dating is not done on items of known ages. I've ''often'' had said to me that this is because those items are "too young" to measure. Now you're trying to tell me that many such tests have been done, successfully?''

I was being vague, sorry. What I meant to say was that the formation of strata in the earth leads to consistent results, and the "uniformitarian" theories currently being worked on tend to mesh very well and explain each other's unusual phenomena. For example, Archeopteryx examples (or however you spell it, heh) was found in limestone deposits that would have been formed at the appropriate time to capture the fossils, the Jurassic; the biological explanation of millions of years correlates and is consistent with the geological one. This is from Gould's ''The Panda's Thumb'', incidentally.

''Actually, the amount of C14 would be ''much less'' prior to the flood. C14 dating is done by measuring the C12:C14 ratio, and the ''less'' C14, the older the item is presumed to be. So ''more'' C14 prior to the flood would make the items appear ''younger''.''

Whoops, good call. Yes, that is what I meant.

''Not unless the C12:C14 ratio ''suddenly'' changed at the time of the flood. Rather, it would take time to change, as new C14 was being formed. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf this].''

I read that, and it appears to agree with me (and thereby disprove itself). Its graph has a pretty sharp step there, and there is no evidence given for an increase in the carbon cycle of that degree over time.

''On the contrary, that last link mentions some anomalous dates that could be explained by allowing for the effects of the flood. Further, every test for C14 in coal and diamonds shows that they still have C14, which they should not if they were as old as supposed. Again, empirical, repeatable, tests, arranged by creationary scientists, but usually rejected solely because they support a YEC age, usually with various ''ad hoc'' explanations that are only invoked in these cases (i.e. special pleading), and ones that often don't stand scrutiny (for example, you can't get contaminant C14 into the crystal structure of a diamond).''

I am not familiar with this... I'm going to examine the issue a little and reply further on this point... thanks :)

Wow, didn't take long. A researcher in accelerator mass spectronomy, Dr. Harry Grove, states that "the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

"The fungi/bacteria hypothesis that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)"[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html]

{{unsigned|TomMoore}}

:"''I have heard some YEC claim that the whole universe was created at the same time, including the Earth. What exactly is the hypothesis here?''": See [[Starlight problem]]. No, it would not be fairly stated as you proposed.
:"''But you don't create the hypotheses and assume that your current data must be flawed.''": Nobody is doing that. That is, it is not ''data'' that is assumed to be flawed, but ''assumptions''. To put it another way, there is ''data'' that indicates that the ''current assumptions'' are flawed, so new hypotheses are proposed. But sceptics, not liking the new hypotheses, are charging that YECs are proposing things that they are not proposing, such as changes in the laws of physics.
:"''[Setterfield] didn't have any evidence or reason to believe it''": Yes he did. He had historical measurements of the speed of light that appeared to be showing a decrease. In fact, the possibility that the speed of light ''had'' decreased had been discussed decades earlier, precisely because the data ''appeared'' to be showing that.
:"''...evidence to contradict that must be proportionately large as well.''": True, and that is what Setterfield attempted, but ultimately failed to convincingly do. But whilst anti-creationists were saying "you can't change constants" and "you can't extrapolate those measurements back that far", others, including YECs, were properly investigating his claims and ultimately most rejected them.
:"''The creationist "theory" is always that God created everything at some unagreed-upon point...''": That's a gross over-simplification.
:"''It's not very good science.''": What ''is'' good science when it comes to proposing unrepeatable unique past events? Is "nothing exploded and became everything" good science?
:"''In the sense that you intend, that is accurate. I am crippled by my insistence on only reading reputable publications like ''Scientific American'' and ''Nature''.''": The problem is that those publications are ''not'' reputable publications ''when it comes to learning about young-Earth creationism''. If you never want to argue against creationism, that may be okay, but if you want to argue against it—as you are doing—wouldn't it be better to go to the source, i.e. creationists themselves, to find out just what the arguments are?
:"''What I meant to say was that the formation of strata in the earth leads to consistent results...''": So you weren't really replying to the point, instead sidestepping onto a point of your own. And I reject that it ''does'' lead to consistent results.
:"''...the biological explanation of millions of years correlates and is consistent with the geological one...''": Only after frequently changing such dates over more than 100 years. I recall someone saying that the problem with the supposedly-accurate mainstream dates was that they kept changing! However, this was an older bloke, and it appears to me that by now they've largely stopped changing (i.e. apart from some fine tuning), but the point is that biologically-derived dates were grossly different to geologically-derived dates, which were grossly different to radiometrically-derived dates, until they managed to find reasons to alter them until they reached a compromise to settle on. So is the concordance real, or contrived? I suspect the former. And sometimes there is circularity involved, with rocks often being dated by the fossils in them and fossils often being dated by the rocks they are in.
:"''Its graph has a pretty sharp step there...''": It isn't that sharp, and the graph is not to scale anyway.
:"''Wow, didn't take long. ... Dr. Harry Grove, states that "the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series''": That's Dr. ''Gove'', by the way. I don't even follow what it means, because C14 is not part of the uranium-thorium series. Perhaps he means that radioactive decay knocks neutrinos out of nitrogen atoms in the coal? Even so, is this new C14 from surrounding radioactivity allowed for in all other C14 measurements? Or is it, as I mentioned before, a case of special pleading?
: But even assuming this is a legitimate hypothesis, what we have are two competing hypotheses: One, that C14 is being newly created. Two, that coal is less than 100,000 years old (the upper limit of C14 dates). No YEC is saying that C14 in coal in and of itself absolutely proves the YEC view. Rather, it is one more bit of ''scientific evidence'' in support of the YEC view. But the general response is that explanation 2 is ruled out because there ''exists'' an alternative ''possibility'' (explanation 1).
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:00, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Young earth cosmology ==

To [[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] and others: Barry Setterfield's C-decay is only one of five possibilities. Current YEC thinking does not hold with it.

Tell you what: watch for my [[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology|essay]] on the subject.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:56, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== "Evolutionary View" ==

I propose we rename this section the scientific or natural view. Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the earth hence that would be like having the "Gravitational view on the age Egyptian pyramids". Evolution is about the diversification of life. {{unsigned|Glorfon}}
: It is not the "scientific" view; different scientists have different views. And "evolution" does not just refer to biological evolution. Have you never heard reference to things like the evolution of stars? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 14 October 2008 (EDT)
:: There really isn't much debate in the scientific community about how the earth formed. You're right that evolution can refer to any gradual change but I don't think we should call this section the evolutionary view because it could mislead people to associate it with the theory of evolution. Would calling it the natural or uniformitarian view be too bad?
::: Creationary scientists, and there's numerically lots of them, disagree with the majority about how the Earth formed. Yes, evolution can refer to any gradual change, and it can refer to biological evolution, but it can also, as in the case of the stars, refer to a gradual ''increase in complexity'', which is something more than just a "gradual ''change''". What does the "natural" view mean? Do you mean the "naturalistic" view? That might be okay. "Uniformitarian" primarily refers to geology, which is not really applicable to the formation of the planet. If you want to change it to "Naturalistic view", I won't object to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:27, 15 October 2008 (EDT)
::::I could refute alot of things you said there but I'll stay on topic. By natural I mean the view that relies on natural processes rather than supernatural. The article already goes with this. It says "Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past." {{unsigned|Glorfon}}
::::: You could ''try'' refuting a lot of the things I said, but whether you refutations would be correct is another matter. The view that ''relies on'' natural processes is ''naturalism'', the ''belief'' that everything can be/must be explained by natural processes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:56, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

Oh my god, this is the most ridicuolus encyclopedia I've ever seen. I can't belive people like conservants actually exist. You really belive Earth has been created in six days? Holy crap, you must be crazy. I looked at the main page and I saw the news; Obama a socialist? Ahah, this is totally funny. You've got a closed mind.--[[User:Uncyclopediauser|Uncyclopediauser]] 10:59, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

==Age of the Earth==
First, can we archive the enormous amount of text at the beginning of this talk page? Secondly, the first paragraph indicates that the bible and available scientific knowledge suggest the Earth is 6,000 years old. I may be confused but, the carbon 14 dating method suggests that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. I know that the age of the Earth is a sensitive subject; however, maybe we could clarify it a bit. [[User:DevilDog|DevilDog]] 01:19, 18 December 2014 (EST)

Earth

2014-12-18T06:11:49Z

DevilDog: clean up intro.

{{Planet|image=Blue Marble.jpg
|symbol=Earth symbol.svg
|order=3
|primary=Sun
|periapsis=147,090,000 km (0.983 AU)<ref name=earthfact>"[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html Earth Fact Sheet]," [[NASA]], April 19, 2007. Accessed May 2, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=152,100,000 km (1.017 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|semimajor=149,597,886.5 km (1.00000011 AU)<ref name=earthfact/>
|bode=1.0 AU
|eccentricity=0.01671022<ref name=earthfact/>
|sidereal=365.256366 da<ref name=earthfact/>
|synodic=365.256366 da
|orbitspeed=29.783 km/s<ref name=earthfact/>
|inclination=0°
|reference=the ecliptic
|siderealday=23.9345 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|solarday=24 h<ref name=earthfact/>
|rotatespeed=465.11 m/s
|axialtilt=23.439281°
|mass=5.9736 * 1024 kg<ref name=earthfact/>
|density=5,515.3 kg/m³<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacegrav=9.780327 m/s²
|escapespeed=11.186 km/s
|meanradius=6371 km<ref>http://www.solarviews.com/eng/earth.htm</ref><ref name=earthfact/>
|equatorradius =6378.135 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|polarradius =6356.750 km<ref name=earthfact/>
|surfacearea=510,065,600 km²
|landarea=148,939,100 km²
|waterarea=361,126,400 km²
|mintemp=185 K
|meantemp=287 K
|maxtemp=331 K
|moons=1
|composition=Rock
|albedo=0.37<ref name=earthfact/>
|mfd=0.3076 G<ref name=earthfact/>
|pmdm=7.98 * 1022 N-m/T<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|cmdm=1.41 * 1024 N-m/T<ref name=Humphreys>Humphreys, D. R. "[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields]." ''Creation Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984. Accessed April 29, 2008.</ref>
|mdt=2049 a<ref name=Humphreys/>
|mhl=1420 a<ref name=calc/>
}}
The '''Earth''' is the third planet in the [[Solar System]]. It is the largest of the terrestrial planets and is the only known [[planet]] which can support [[life]] as we know it. The surface of the planet is approximately two-thirds covered in [[water]]. The atmosphere is roughly 78% [[nitrogen]] and 21% [[oxygen]], with trace amounts of water vapor, [[carbon dioxide]], and other elements. Both the Bible and the available scientific evidence indicate the earth is about 6,000 years old.<ref>[http://creation.com/how-old-is-the-earth How old is the earth?]</ref><ref>[http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young earth]</ref>

==Physical Description==

Within the [[Solar System]], Earth is the third planet from the [[Sun]]. It is approximately 8,000 miles (13,000 km) in diameter; its equatorial circumference (measured around the equator) is 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometers), and the polar circumference is slightly less at 24,809 miles (40,008 km).<ref>http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm</ref> The reason its metric circumference is so close to the "round number" of 40,000 is that the [[kilometer]] was defined (by the French) as 1/10,000th the distance from the [[Equator]] to the [[North Pole]].

Its surface area is approximately 4·π (4000 mi)2 = 200 million square miles (510 million km2). It has been said that Earth should really be called "water", as the larger part of it—about 70%—is covered by water. In fact, the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] and [[Indian Ocean|Indian]] oceans alone cover about half of the Earth's surface.

The Earth orbits at an [[Astronomical unit|average distance of about 93 million miles (150 million km) from the Sun]] in an almost circular orbit. The plane of this orbit, or '''ecliptic''', is the common reference plane for the inclinations of the orbits of all [[planet|planets]] and [[dwarf planet|dwarf planets]] in the [[Solar System]], though in fact Earth's orbit is inclined 7.25° to the plane of the [[Sun]]'s equator. It takes light (and other forms of electromagnetic radiation) approximately 500 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth, i.e. the distance can also be stated as "500 light-seconds." The distance to nearby stars is made by measuring the stellar [[parallax]] between observations when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit, so the Earth's orbit itself is a measuring stick for astronomical distances, and is known as the ''astronomical unit'' (A. U.) It is worth noting that if the Earth were slightly closer to the Sun, it would be too hot for life while if Earth were slightly further away from the Sun, water would freeze and life as we know it would be impossible.

==Origin==
People disagree about when and how the Earth was created. The three most popular ideas are:
#That [[God]] created the Earth several hundred generations ago, as recounted in [[Genesis]]. By adding years and other time indications in the [[Old Testament]] chronologies, one can calculate the [[age of the Earth]] as approximately 6,000 years (see [[Date of creation]] and [[Young Earth Creationism]]).
#That God created the Earth billions of years ago (see [[Old Earth Creationism]] and [[Theistic Evolution]]).
#That the Earth came into existence billions of years ago (approximately 4.5 billion years in modern estimates), entirely through natural processes and without any intervention by God.

Clashes between adherents of these ideas have gone on since time immemorial (see [[origins debate]]), though the last theory has only matured in the last 200 years.

== Young Earth Creationist view ==

===Formation and Age===

Young Earth creationists believe, on the basis of the biblical account in Genesis and biblical geochronologies, that the entire Earth, including animal, plant, and human life, was formed in six days, around 4000 B.C.
Mainstream scientific journals, committed to a [[naturalism|naturalistic]] worldview, contend this view.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0822sternberg.asp 1</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/538.asp 2</ref><ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53400 3</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3833&program=DI%20Main%20Page%20-%20News&callingPage=discoMainPage 4</ref>

Most scientists believe that the Earth formed by natural processes instead of having been created by a supernatural entity. However, as one scientist noted, “... most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.” <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref>

=== Magnetosphere ===
Earth is surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to prevent most of the Sun's radiation from reaching the Earth and harming the life on it. This field has been decaying at a known exponential rate, as decades of recordkeeping reveal. In 1984, Dr. Russell Humphreys developed a model for the creation of magnetic fields<ref name=Humphreys/> that suggests that the Earth was at first made entirely of water<ref>See {{Bible ref|book=II_Peter|chap=3|verses=5}}</ref>, much of which God transmuted into other elements after He made the Earth, probably on the third day of Creation. Humphreys's predicted magnetic decay time for the Earth agrees well with published data and thus constitutes further evidence for a young Earth.

===Shape of the Earth===

Some people dispute the shape of the Earth, arguing that the Bible describes the Earth as flat (presumably square, given that it is described as having "four corners" (Revelations 7:1))rather than spherical. However, no credible organization has ever expressed support for this theory.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/crea-fe.htm</ref> Some have disputed the idea that the Earth rotates around the Sun.<ref>http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm</ref>

In [[Book of Revelations|Revelations]] 7:1 it is stated:

"And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth..." (Revelations 7:1)

A sphere has no corners. The four corners are also mentioned in Isaiah 11:12. This is often accepted to be a figure of speech.

It is also stated:

"Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." ([[Book of Daniel|Daniel]] 2:35)

AND

"Thus were the visions of mine head in my bed; I saw, and behold a tree in the midst of the earth, and the height thereof was great. The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:" (Daniel 4:10-11)

AND

"Behold, [Jesus] cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him" (Revelations 1:7)

AND

"Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 4:8)

Apologist [[JP Holding]]'s take on this is that this may have been a vision. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/af/earthshape.html#globe</ref>

==Christianity and the Earth==

===Christian Historical-Grammatical Bible Exegesis or Bible Literalism===

According to [[Creation Ministries International]], most young earth creationists use a [[hermeneutic]] "best described as the [[Historical-grammatical exegesis|historical-grammatical method]] in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref> Creation Ministries International further states that "Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text."<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/</ref>

Bible scholars have estimated the age of the earth based on the Creation account in Genesis and the genealogical accounts in Numbers and other books of the Pentateuch. One famous estimate was published in 1650 by [[James Ussher|James Ussher Archbishop of Armagh]] in a book called ''Annals of the World,'' in which he estimated the Creation to have occurred on 23 October 4004 B.C. Other Biblical scholars maintain that there are possible gaps in the genealogies, often using the ideas of the 19th century Calvinist theologian [[Benjamin Warfield]] on the issue. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/primeval_chronology.shtml</ref> However, [[James Barr]], regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], wrote in 1984 the following: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.’" <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/</ref> Furthermore, it should be noted that Barr himself rejects supernatural Christianity, and so is not ''[[a priori]]'' biased in favor of creationism. <ref>http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/pca_creation_study_committee_report.shtml</ref>

Many [[Christian|Christians]] believe that the Earth is the perfect distance away from the Sun and take this to be evidence of [[God]]'s existence. <ref>http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html</ref> Secular scientists, however, reject this reasoning using the anthropic principle<ref>http://www.anthropic-principle.com</ref>.

===Christian Non-Literalism===

Many mainstream Christian denominations believe the story of Genesis is not meant to be read literally, and believe that the age of the Earth is on the order of millions or billions of years, not thousands of years. <ref>http://webusers.xula.edu/cporter/2000n/evolution_and_religion.htm</ref>

===Scientific Uniformitarianism===

Uniformitarian scientists believe that the earth is beyond 4 billion years old.<ref>http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html</ref> They also refute that the Earth is only 6,000 years old by quoting older human societies dated by their dating method as older than that.<ref>http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/</ref>

== Naturalistic view ==

Estimates by uniformitarian geologists of the age of the Earth and the beginning of life give about 4.55 billion years and 3.5 billion years ago respectively. These estimates are primarily based on radioactive dating of meteorites and fossil specimens. Most scientists today conclude that the Earth formed by natural processes, specifically by the accumulation of debris orbiting the sun billions of years in the past.<ref name=nebula>"[http://science.jrank.org/pages/6265/Solar-System-solar-nebula-hypothesis.html The Solar Nebula Hypothesis]." ''The Science Encyclopedia''. Accessed May 6, 2008.</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Environmental trends]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/earth.htm The Earth]
*[http://www.noaa.gov/ NOAA] An agency that enriches life through science.
*[http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geography/glossary/ Glossary]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{Solarsystem}}

[[Category:Featured articles]]

Florida

2014-12-16T07:05:54Z

DevilDog: cleaned up into

{{USState
|name=Florida
|flag=Florida_State_Flag.gif
|motto="In God We Trust"
|nick=The Sunshine State
|capital=Tallahassee
|language=English
|governor=Rick Scott
|gparty=Republican
|senator2=Marco Rubio
|s2party=Republican
|s2phone=(202) 224-3041
|s2email=http://rubio.senate.gov/office_locations.cfm Contact
|senator1=Bill Nelson
|s1party=Democrat
|s1phone=(202) 224-5274
|s1email=http://billnelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm Contact
|population=
|date=March 3, 1845 (27th)
}}

'''Florida''' is a state located in the southeastern [[United States]]. It is bound by [[Georgia]] and [[Alabama]] to the north, the [[Gulf of Mexico]] to the west, the [[Atlantic Ocean]] to the east, and the [[Straits of Florida]] to the south. Originally a colony of [[Spain]], it was purchased by the U.S. in 1819 and in 1845 became the 27th state to join the Union. The capital of Florida is [[Tallahassee]], and the main metropolitan areas are [[Jacksonville, Florida|Jacksonville]], [[Miami]], St. Petersburg and [[Orlando, Florida|Orlando]]. Florida's nickname is the "Sunshine State", and its state tree is the sabal palm. Florida has grown very rapidly, pulling in retirees from the cold, giving it the 3rd largest population of the 50 states.

==History==
See [[History of Florida]]

Florida was first settled by Europeans in 1513, when Spaniard [[Juan Ponce de Leon]] landed near where [[St. Augustine, Florida|St. Augustine]] stands today. de Leon originally spotted Florida on Easter Sunday, so he named it ''Pascua Florida'', which means "Flowery Easter" in Spanish. <ref>[http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Florida/FloridaNameOrigin.html Florida state name origin]</ref>

For some time, Spain and France ran competing colonies in Florida, with the Spanish eventually expelling the French. [[John Quincy Adams]], serving as the Secretary of State for President [[James Monroe]], negotiated the Adams-Onís Treaty with the Spanish in 1819, purchasing the territory of Florida from Spain. <ref>[http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1801_timeline/acquisition_of_florida.html Acquisition of Florida]</ref>

Florida seceded from the Union in 1861 and joined the [[Confederate States of America]]; there was little military action in the remote state.
[[Image:Florida ref 2001.jpg|thumb|right|300px|The state of Florida]]
==Economy==
A large sector of Florida's economy is based on the cultivation of citrus fruit. As of 2006, Florida produced 67 percent of the [[United States]]' total citrus fruit. This breaks down to 74 percent of [[oranges]] grown in the US, 58 percent of [[tangerines]] and 54 percent of [[grapefruit]]. <ref>[http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/Florida/fruit_orange.html Florida state fruit: orange]</ref> The orange blossom is Florida's state flower, the orange is the state fruit and orange juice is the official state beverage.

Tourism is also a primary driver of the economy, with over 76 million tourists visiting and generating 57 billion dollars in revenue per year.<ref>http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95</ref> Particularly popular attractions include the Everglades, Walt Disney World, and Miami's South Beach district.

NASA's presence in Cape Canaveral makes Florida a very good environment for the aerospace industry. Florida is the 4th largest employer of workers in the aerospace industry, with over 23,000 employed.

==Politics==
Republican Senator [[Mel Martinez]] astonished Floridians by suddenly resigning in August 2009. Governor [[Charlie Crist]] appointed [[George LeMieux]], who was Crist's campaign manager in 2006 and served as deputy attorney general of Florida when Crist was attorney general. LeMieux is regarded as one of the shrewdest political strategists in the state and, like Crist, is a moderate Republican. Crist then decided to run for the seat.

Crist was elected governor in 2006, running as a fiscal conservative and a moderate on social issues. His style is folksy and he searches for bipartisanship. His handling of the great hurricanes of 2005-6 was widely praised. He appointed one moderate and two conservatives to the state supreme court. His support for [[John McCain]] helped carry the state primary and played a role in giving the 2008 GOP nomination to McCain. He cut property taxes and cut the state budget, but annoyed some conservatives by his enthusiastic support for the Obama administration's stimulus bill in spring 2009. Polls show a strong base of support from conservatives and moderates and some liberals. However, Crist was defeated in the Republican Senate Primary in 2010; his rival in the GOP primary was state House Speaker Marco Rubio, a Cuban American.

Florida is a swing state in presidential elections.

==State symbols==
<center>
<gallery perrow="3">
Image:Florida_panther.jpg|The Florida panther is the state's official animal.
Image:Orange_blossom.jpg|The orange blossom is Florida's official flower.
Image: Manatee Keith Ramos WEB.jpg|The manatee is Florida's official marine mammal.
</gallery>
</center>

==Elected officials==
===Federal===
*Sen. [[Bill Nelson]] (D)
*Sen. [[Marco Rubio]] (R)
*Rep. [[Jeff Miller]] [R, FL-1]
*Rep. [[Steve Southerland]] [R, FL-2]
*Rep. [[Corrine Brown]] [D, FL-3]
*Rep. [[Ander Crenshaw]] [R, FL-4]
*Rep. [[Rich Nugent]] [R, FL-5]
*Rep. [[Clifford Stearns]] [R, FL-6]
*Rep. [[John Mica]] [R, FL-7]
*Rep. [[Dan Webster]] [R, FL-8]
*Rep. [[Gus Bilirakis]] [R, FL-9]
*Rep. [[C. W. Young]] [R, FL-10]
*Rep. [[Kathy Castor]] [D, FL-11]
*Rep. [[Dennis Ross]] [R, FL-12]
*Rep. [[Vern Buchanan]] [R, FL-13]
*Rep. [[Connie Mack]] [R, FL-14]
*Rep. [[Bill Posey]] [R, FL-15]
*Rep. [[Thomas Rooney]] [R, FL-16]
*Rep. [[Frederica Wilson]] [D, FL-17]
*Rep. [[Ileana Ros-Lehtinen]] [R, FL-18]
*Rep. [[Ted Deutch]] [D, FL-19]
*Rep. [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] [D, FL-20]
*Rep. [[Mario Diaz-Balart]] [R, FL-21]
*Rep. [[Allen West]] [R, FL-22]
*Rep. [[Alcee Hastings]] [D, FL-23]
*Rep. [[Sandy Adams]] [R, FL-24]
*Rep. [[David Rivera]] [R, FL-25]

===Statewide===
*Governor [[Rick Scott]] (R)
*Lt. Governor [[Jennifer Carroll]] (R)
*Chief Financial Officer [[Jeff Atwater]] (R)
*Attorney General [[Pam Bondi]] (R)
*Agriculture Commissioner [[Adam Putnam]] (R)

==Metropolitan Areas==
*[[Fort Myers, Florida|Fort Myers]]
*[[Jacksonville, Florida|Jacksonville]]
*[[Miami]]
*[[Orlando, Florida|Orlando]]
*[[Sarasota, Florida|Sarasota]]
*[[Tallahassee]]
*[[Tampa, Florida|Tampa]]

== References ==
<references/>
{{USstates}}
[[Category:Florida]]
[[Category:The South]]

Sheriff

2014-12-16T05:14:42Z

DevilDog: wikilink

In most parts of the [[United States]], the '''sheriff''' is the chief law enforcement officer of a [[county]] or [[parish]].In some states, such as [[Connecticut]], the office of the Sheriff has been abolished altogether. In others, such as [[Delaware]], the Sheriff is responsible for court-ordered civil paper service and has no law enforcement authority. This, however, is currently in debate within that state on the basis of [[Common Law]] authority granted to the Sheriff. In two states, [[Hawaii]] and [[Rhode Island]], the sheriff has state-wide authority. In Hawaii, the sheriff is the functional equivalent of a [[State Police|state police]].

==History==

The Sheriff's Office is derived from [[English]] common law. The word is derived from the [[Old English]] term "shire-reeve." A shire is an Old English form of a [[county]] and the "reeve" was its appointed administrative/legal officer. Practices have gradually diverged in the various countries that have sheriffs. In the year 1215, the position of Sheriff was made permanent into English law by the signing of the [[Magna Carta]].<ref>http://www.kentcounty.com/sheriff/aboutus.htm</ref> The term Sheriff is used throughout much of the English-speaking world. In the [[US]] a sheriff is a chief of police, whereas in [[England]] he is an officer responsible for enforcing court orders. In [[Scotland]], on the other hand, he is a special judge in a court of law.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378478</ref>

==See Also==
* [[List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
* [[Police]] and Sheriffs
* Sheriff [[Richard Mack]] of [[Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association]] ([[CSPOA]])
* [[Oath Keepers]]
* [[Essay:Systems of support#Law_Enforcement_System]]
[[Category:Systems of Support]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]
[[Category:List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
[[Category:Law]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Sheriff

2014-12-16T05:13:59Z

DevilDog: flow

In most parts of the [[United States]], the '''sheriff''' is the chief law enforcement officer of a [[county]] or [[parish]].In some states, such as [[Connecticut]], the office of the Sheriff has been abolished altogether. In others, such as [[Delaware]], the Sheriff is responsible for court-ordered civil paper service and has no law enforcement authority. This, however, is currently in debate within that state on the basis of [[Common Law]] authority granted to the Sheriff. In two states, [[Hawaii]] and [[Rhode Island]], the sheriff has state-wide authority. In Hawaii, the sheriff is the functional equivalent of a [[state police]].

==History==

The Sheriff's Office is derived from [[English]] common law. The word is derived from the [[Old English]] term "shire-reeve." A shire is an Old English form of a [[county]] and the "reeve" was its appointed administrative/legal officer. Practices have gradually diverged in the various countries that have sheriffs. In the year 1215, the position of Sheriff was made permanent into English law by the signing of the [[Magna Carta]].<ref>http://www.kentcounty.com/sheriff/aboutus.htm</ref> The term Sheriff is used throughout much of the English-speaking world. In the [[US]] a sheriff is a chief of police, whereas in [[England]] he is an officer responsible for enforcing court orders. In [[Scotland]], on the other hand, he is a special judge in a court of law.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378478</ref>

==See Also==
* [[List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
* [[Police]] and Sheriffs
* Sheriff [[Richard Mack]] of [[Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association]] ([[CSPOA]])
* [[Oath Keepers]]
* [[Essay:Systems of support#Law_Enforcement_System]]
[[Category:Systems of Support]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]
[[Category:List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
[[Category:Law]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Sheriff

2014-12-15T08:27:14Z

DevilDog: add info, copy edit for flow

In most parts of the [[United States]], the '''sheriff''' is the chief law enforcement officer of a [[county]] or [[parish]].In some states, such as [[Connecticut]], the office of the Sheriff has been abolished altogether. In others, such as [[Delaware]], the Sheriff is responsible for court-ordered civil paper service and has no law enforcement authority. This, however, is currently in debate within that state on the basis of [[Common Law]] authority granted to the Sheriff. Two states, [[Hawaii]] and [[Rhode Island]], the sheriff has state-wide authority. In Hawaii, the sheriff is the functional equivalent of a [[state police]].

==History==

The Sheriff's Office is derived from [[English]] common law. The word is derived from the [[Old English]] term "shire-reeve." A shire is an Old English form of a [[county]] and the "reeve" was its appointed administrative/legal officer. Practices have gradually diverged in the various countries that have sheriffs. In the year 1215, the position of Sheriff was made permanent into English law by the signing of the [[Magna Carta]].<ref>http://www.kentcounty.com/sheriff/aboutus.htm</ref> The term Sheriff is used throughout much of the English-speaking world. In the [[US]] a sheriff is a chief of police, whereas in [[England]] he is an officer responsible for enforcing court orders. In [[Scotland]], on the other hand, he is a special judge in a court of law.<ref>http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378478</ref>

==See Also==
* [[List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
* [[Police]] and Sheriffs
* [[Essay:Systems of support#Law_Enforcement_System]]
[[Category:Systems of Support]]
[[Category:Law Enforcement]]
[[Category:List of Law Enforcement Agencies]]
[[Category:Law]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

United States of America

2014-12-15T07:24:18Z

DevilDog: add info, copy edit for flow

{{Country
|name =''United States of America''
|map =US map.PNG
|map2 =Loc of United States.png
|established=1776
|flag =50 star flag.png
|arms =United States arms.png
|capital =Washington, D.C.
|government =Constitutional Republic
|language =English
|official =n
|president =Barack Hussein Obama
|area =3,718,695 sq mi
|pop =313,232,000 (2011)
|gdp-year = $15 trillion (2011)
|gdp-pc =$48,029 (2011)
|currency =United States Dollar (USD)
}}
The '''United States of America'''<ref>(''conventional short form'': '''United States'''; ''abbreviation'': '''US''' or '''USA'''; sometimes also referred to as '''the States''' or simply as '''America''')</ref> is a federal republic of fifty states, a capitol district, and fifteen territories. It is the most prosperous, [[conservative]] and Christian nation in the world, based on the longest-running [[Constitution]] in history. Located on the [[North American]] continent, it is bound by [[Canada]] to the north, [[Mexico]] to the south, the [[Pacific Ocean]] to the west, and the [[Atlantic Ocean]] to the east. Founded originally as 13 colonies in the [[British Empire]], Britain's American colonies formally broke with the mother country on July 4, 1776 with the [[Declaration of Independence]].<ref>IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776. [http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America], ushistory.org, (Accessed August 2010).</ref> Britain formally recognized the independence of the new nation, the United States of America, in the 1783 [[Treaty of Paris]], which ended the [[American Revolutionary War]]. Shortly thereafter, in 1787, the [[United States Constitution]] was written; grounded on [[Republican form of government|republican]] political principles. The Constitution remains in effect today, albeit with several amendments since then. The Americans created political parties and, since abolishing [[slavery]] in a bloody [[American Civil War|civil war]] (1861-65), instituted a form of government guided by the rule of law rather than the desires of a majority of voters. According to the U.S. Constitution written by America's [[Founding Fathers]], the United States is a [[Constitutional Republic]] that functions as a representative [[democracy]]. America derives many of its policies from the Bible, and the logic behind the Bible. Many people view America as holding a special place among nations, due to its foundations in liberty and justice.

America's [[free market]] economy grew rapidly, becoming the largest in the world by the 1870s. Between 1791 and 1959, 37 new states were added to the original 13 as the nation expanded across the North American continent and acquired a number of overseas possessions. After defeating the Soviet Union in the [[Cold War]], the U.S. emerged as the world's only [[superpower]], boasting the largest economy and most powerful military. It exerts enormous cultural and intellectual influence worldwide, and in return is the target of the enemies of democracy and [[capitalism]].

The capital of the United States of America is [[Washington, DC]].

== People ==
[[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|220px|left|At Washington, DC.]]
Population: 310,232,863 (July 2010 est.) Population growth rate: 0.97% (2010 est.) Labor force: 153.9 million (2010 est.).

Ethnic groups: white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate) note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic <ref> [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The World Factbook.] </ref>

In 2010, around 400,000 [[illegal immigrants]] were deported. The Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research organization in Washington, estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the US today. <ref> [http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0516/p01s02-ussc.html Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?] </ref>

Although the diverse group of immigrants that has come to the U.S. speak many languages, [[English]] is the traditional unifying language of the United States and is necessary for full civic and cultural participation.

==Geography==

[[File:Colorado.jpg|thumb|[[Colorado]].]]
Forty-eight of the fifty United states form a regional grouping known as the contiguous United States, bordering both the North [[Atlantic Ocean]] and the North [[Pacific Ocean]] and lying between [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]]. Two of the fifty states, Alaska and Hawaii, are not contiguous with any of the other states. Alaska is located to the northwest of [[Canada]] and lies across the [[Bering Strait]] from the Russian Federation. [[Hawaii]] is an [[archipelago]] located in the North Pacific Ocean. Puerto Rico, which is largely self governing, is a commonwealth and is considered part of the U.S., as are several smaller territories in the Pacific Ocean, such as Guam. Each of the 50 states has a large degree of sovereignty, but the boundaries are debated and shift slightly every year.

At over 3.7 million square miles (over 9.6 million km²), the U.S. (including its non-contiguous and overseas states and territories) is the third largest country by total area (after Russia and Canada). It is the world's third most populous nation, with over 350 million people (after China and India).

Mt. McKinley, Alaska, is the highest point in North America and Death Valley, California, is the lowest point on the continent. <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA World Factbook], ''North America :: United States'', Updated on February 23, 2011, (Accessed on February 23, 2011).</ref>

==History==

===American Revolution===
{{main|American Revolution}}
[[File:Washington-deleware.jpg|thumb|left|Washington, Chief of the Continental Army, is shown crossing the Delaware River.]]
The American Revolution exploded from fears the British Empire was trying to restrict the historic rights and liberties of Americans. The British victory in the French and Indian War ended the threat that foreign powers might attack the colonies; Britain's protection was no longer needed. At the same time Britain decided to assert its powers by imposing [[taxes]]. The taxes (as on stamps, sugar, and tea) were not large but the principle was simple: Americans insisted their own [[Legislature|legislatures]] could impose taxes but not [[Parliament]], because Americans were not represented there. "No taxation without representation!" and "[[Don't tread on me]]" became common phrases in America by the American people, but the British refused over and over again to accept it. London sent in troops when Boston protested vehemently, and Americans organized shadow governments in every colony.

The Americans were adopting a new political philosophy, called [[republicanism]], which stressed civic virtue, fear of corruption, and disdain for [[aristocracy]] (there were no aristocrats in America apart from occasional British visitors). Republicanism alerted Americans to their constitutional rights as Englishmen – one right was that the people, through their elected officials, set the taxes and upheld law. Constitutionally, to Americans their "elected officials" were not represented in the British Parliament, it meant having their own colonial legislatures. The British replied haughtily toward this desire from the Americans, going so far as to suggest America was "virtually represented" by the British Parliament in some way or form.

====Boston Tea Party====
{{main|Boston Tea Party}}

The British Parliaments idea of representation in America fueled their desire to increase taxes on the Americans. The tax on stamps in 1765 incited near rebellion, as the 13 separate colonies began meeting together and sharing their grievances. The stamp tax was repealed but others followed, especially the tax on tea. In response, Americans boycotted tea and merchants refused to order it, except in Boston. There, a well-organized group of patriots dumped the tea in the harbor, historically known as the [[Boston Tea Party]]. These events infuriated London, so they sent troops to North America and stripped [[Massachusetts]] of its self government and suspended the historic rights the colonists were so proud of.

====Thirteen Colonies====
{{main|Thirteen Colonies}} [[Image:Pop1750.jpg|right|thumb|400px]]

The thirteen original colonies began organizing shadow governments, called "Committees of Correspondence," which prepared the Americans for the day "patriots" (or "Whigs," as they called themselves) could assume all functions of local government. That day came when the British sent troops from Boston to seize gunpowder in attempt to dismantle a potential revolt, and the American patriots gathered there to defend their liberty. These patriots were known as the American "Minute men," a well trained militia, and had planned for this day at Lexington and Concord. When the militia clashed with the elite British troops they soundly defeated them, prompting an historic backlash from Britain. The American Revolution had begun.

The thirteen colonies, organized as the "[[First Continental Congress]]," became a national government as the shadow governments in each colony took control and ousted all royal officials. Congress set up a [[Continental Army]] and gave command to an American hero and Virginia's leader, [[George Washington]]. George Washington took charge in Boston, and he forced the British to leave in the spring of 1776. All 13 colonies were at this point in control of the American Patriots, and they listened as [[Tom Paine]] explained ''Common Sense'' principles, proudly boasting of America's strength and its power as a new nation. America, in its own right as an individual nation no longer needed nor wanted a foreign [[King]]. Congress called on the colonies to become States and to write new State constitutions. On July 4, 1776, Congress unanimously declared the independence of a new nation, the United States of America.

====France in the American Revolutionary War====
[[File:Marquis de Lafayette.jpg|thumb|[[Marquis de Lafayette]].]]
King [[George III]] could not abide the insolent Americans and he sent his small army and large navy to America in attempt to reconquer his lost colonies. They were able to recapture [[New York City]], but the King's failure to spread elsewhere greatly outweighed this small victory. The powerful Royal navy gave the British command of the seas and the ability to land troops anywhere and capture any specific place, but the shortage of British soldiers, and the very long 3000 mile supply line, meant that the British could only hold a few points at any one time. Hiring German soldiers (Hessians) was necessary, but they were not enough, for the Patriots always had more available soldiers. The British expectations that Loyalist would rise up and overthrow the Patriots was a [[chimera]]; the Loyalists did provide some help to British invasion forces, but were never strong enough to operate on their own or control any territory.

[[France]], humiliated by Britain in the 1760s, was stronger in the late 1770's than it was a decade earlier and wanted revenge against the British for their past woes. Thus, the French secretly armed and financed the Americans. Lafayette, a French general in the American Revolutionary War, served in the Continental Army under George Washington. He convinced France to send their first naval and land forces to the Americas and participated in defending Richmond, Virginia from Benedict Arnold and in the battle of Yorktown, Virginia; Lafayette contributed in no slight degree toward the grand result.

In 1777, the British sent a large army to invade [[New York]] and cut off the revolutionary states of [[New England]]. The plan was a disaster as the American militia captured the entire British invasion force at Saratoga. Encouraged by diplomat [[Benjamin Franklin]], the French recognized the United States as an independent nation, signed a treaty of alliance, and entered the war against Britain. Later, the treaty extended to [[Spain]] and the [[Netherlands]] as allies to America; Britain's diplomacy was disjointed that it had no allies at all, and was militarily matched or surpassed by America and its new allies. The British invasion of the South in 1780-81 was designed to bring out Loyalist support, but it failed and the second major British army was captured at the [[Battle of Yorktown]]. The British Parliament revolted at their reckless king and his incompetent government and sued for peace, which was achieved on terms favorable to the U.S. in 1783. About 20% of the Loyalists moved to [[Canada]], but many stayed in America, and the new peaceful nation resumed its rapid growth.

===New Nation===
[[File:Bierstadt Looking Down Yosemite-Valley 1865.jpg|thumb|[[Albert Bierstadt]], ''Looking Down Yosemite-Valley'', 1865.]]
In 1783, when the Treaty of Paris concluded the war of independence, the American population totalled some three million citizens and slaves living on about one million square miles of land. Tens of thousands of [[Native Americans]] also lived in the [[Northwest Territory]] and the Southwest.

The Thirteen original states are [[Connecticut]], [[Delaware]], [[Georgia]], [[Maryland]], [[Massachusetts]] (including [[maine]]), [[New Hampshire]], [[New Jersey]], [[New York]], [[North Carolina]], [[Pennsylvania]], [[Rhode Island]], [[South Carolina]] and [[Virginia]]. In 1790, an agreement between supporters of Jefferson and those of [[Alexander Hamilton]] resulted in the creation of the [[District of Columbia]] from part of [[Maryland]]; it has served as the national capital since 1800. The remainder of the 1783 territory was eventually organized as the states of [[Ohio]], [[Indiana]], [[Michigan]], [[Illinois]], [[Wisconsin]], [[Kentucky]], [[Tennessee]], [[Mississippi]] and [[Alabama]].

===Westward Expansion===
[[File:U.S. Territorial Acquisitions PD WC.jpg|thumb|left|Territorial acquisitions such as the Thirteen Colonies, the Louisiana Purchase, and British and Spanish Cession.]]
In 1803, [[French]] first consul [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] took advantage of a lull in his war with Great Britain to sell the [[Louisiana Territory]] to the United States, more than doubling the nation's land area. This territory would later be organized as the states of [[Minnesota]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Montana]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], [[Iowa]], [[Missouri]], [[Arkansas]], [[Kansas]], [[Oklahoma]], and [[Louisiana]] proper. President Jefferson commissioned [[Lewis and Clark]] to explore the new territory from 1802 to 1804.

The U.S. seized, then purchased [[Florida]] from Spain in 1819. [[Texas]] joined the United States in 1845 after winning its revolution against Mexico.
[[File:Map Leading Group by County US.jpg|thumb|Map Leading Group by County, 2000.]]
After victory the [[Mexican American War]] of 1846-48, the U.S. purchased via the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] territory that became the states of [[California]], [[Nevada]], [[Utah]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]]. In 1846 the U.S. and Britain agreed that the 49th Parallel (degree of latitude) would serve as the boundary between the U. S. and [[British Columbia]] (now part of Canada). The American portion became the states of [[Washington]], [[Oregon]] and [[Idaho]].

===Civil War===
{{main|American Civil War}}
An issue that had been left unresolved at the [[Constitutional Convention]] was [[slavery]]. The South's largely agricultural economy depended on slave labor to work its cotton plantations. The North was more heavily industrialized, and slavery was outlawed in northern states. After a series of failed compromises, the South broke away to form the [[Confederate States of America]], following the election of President [[Abraham Lincoln]] of the new [[Republican Party]] in the election of 1860. Four long years of war ended in the spring of 1865 with the surrenders of Confederate generals [[Robert E. Lee]] at Appomattox, [[Virginia]] and [[Joseph E. Johnston]] at Durham, [[North Carolina]].

===America Acquires an Empire===

In 1867, the U.S. purchased [[Alaska]] from [[Russia]]. It became a state in 1959.

Hawaii became an independent republic in 1894 and voluntarily joined the U.S. in 1898, becoming a state in 1960.

As a result of the [[Spanish-American War]], the United States took control of the [[Philippines]] and annexed [[Puerto Rico]] and [[Guam]]. The Philippines became independent in 1946, after the U.S. reconquered the islands from Japan in World War II. [[Puerto Rico]] has occasionally held referendum that ratified its continuing unique "Commonwealth" status as part of the United States. The residents of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens. Guam continues as a U.S. owned territory with full citizenship for its inhabitants. The people of Puerto Rico and Guam have a vote in presidential primaries and a voice, but not a vote, in Congress.

==The Constitution and Politics in the United States==

[[Image:76485685i79.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The drafting committee presenting the [[Declaration of Independence]] to the [[Continental Congress]], painted by John Trumbull 1817–1819.]]

Between 1776 and 1788, the United States was governed according to the [[Articles of Confederation]]. The Founding Fathers formally established the current structure of the United States by ratification of the [[U.S. Constitution]] in 1788. Since 1789, that constitution has been the basic governing document. America's Founding Fathers understood that a democracy is always in flux and given to “mob rule,”<ref>[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/27/the-coming-g20-riots-the-spread-of-mob-rule/comment-page-1/ The coming G20 riots & the spread of mob rule], ''Michelle Malkin'', March 27, 2009.</ref> while a republic is fixed and stable, resting on “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Because of the uncertainty of democracy, [[Benjamin Rush]] — a signer of the Declaration of Independence — wrote: “A simple democracy is one of the greatest of evils.”<ref>AWR Hawkins. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/america-a-republic-not-a-democracy/ America: A Republic, Not a Democracy], ''Pajamas Media'', September 03, 2009.</ref>

Sovereignty in America comes from the citizenry, and the basic political values are called "[[republicanism]]," (not to be confused with the [[Republican Party]],) especially the commitment to civic virtue and civic duty, and opposition to corruption and aristocracy. Popular political parties emerged in the United States in the 1790s; currently the two major political parties are the [[Democratic Party]], and the [[Republican Party]]. Minor parties are of little importance overall but can be useful in pushing certain topics to the public eye.

=== The Role of Religion in Government ===
{{main|Religion and U.S. Government}}

==Government==
{{main|United States Federal Government}}

[[Image:56eugyjnm.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[White House]], the official home and workplace of the [[President of the United States]] of America.]]

===Executive Branch===

*Chief of state: The [[President of the United States]] is both the chief of state and head of government
*Head of government: President of the United States; [[Vice President of the United States]]
*Cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the president with Senate approval
*Elections: The president and vice president serve four-year terms (eligible for a second term)

===Legislative Branch===

The United States legislative branch of government is a [[bicameral]] Congress, which consists of the [[United States Senate|Senate]] (100 seats, 2 members are elected from each state by popular vote to serve six-year terms; one-third are elected every two years) and the [[House of Representatives]] (435 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve two-year terms).

===Judicial Branch===
{{main|Supreme Court of the United States}}

The United States [[Supreme Court]] consists of nine justices, nominated by the president and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The judicial branch also includes the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the United States District Courts. Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that judges serve "during good Behavior," ''i.e.'', until they resign, die, or are impeached. The Supreme Court's decision in ''Marbury v. Madison'' established judicial review, whereby the federal courts have the power to declare federal and state laws and actions of the executive branch of the federal or a state government unconstitutional.

== Economy ==

The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $47,400. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace. US business firms enjoy greater flexibility than their counterparts in [[Europe]] and [[Japan]] in decisions to expand capital plant, to lay off surplus workers, and to develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to enter their rivals' home markets than foreign firms face entering US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment; their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II.

The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Unfortunately, China remains both the banker and salesman to the United State's role as buyer, and debtor. This will not end well for the United States, Republican president or not. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The war in March-April 2003 between a US-led coalition and Iraq, and the subsequent occupation of Iraq, required major shifts in national resources to the military. Soaring oil prices between 2005 and the first half of 2008 threatened [[inflation]] and [[unemployment]], as higher gasoline prices ate into consumers' budgets. Imported oil accounts for about 60% of US consumption. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable [[trade deficit]]s and [[budget deficit]]s, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
[[File:Gast1872.jpg|thumb|"American Progress," painting by John Gast, 1872.]]
The merchandise trade deficit reached a record $840 billion in 2008 before shrinking to $506 billion in 2009, and ramping back up to $630 billion in 2010. The global economic downturn, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, investment bank failures, falling home prices, and tight credit pushed the United States into a [[recession]] by mid-2008. [[GDP]] contracted until the third quarter of 2009, making this the deepest and longest downturn since the [[Great Depression]]. To help stabilize financial markets, the US Congress established a $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) in October 2008. The government used some of these funds to purchase equity in US banks and other industrial corporations, much of which had been returned to the government by early 2011.

In January 2009 the US Congress passed and President [[Barack Obama]] signed a bill providing an additional $787 billion fiscal stimulus to be used over 10 years - two-thirds on additional spending and one-third on tax cuts - to create jobs and to help the economy recover. Approximately two-thirds of these funds were injected into the economy by the end of 2010. In March 2010, President Obama signed a health insurance reform bill into law that will extend coverage to an additional 32 million American citizens by 2016, through private health insurance for the general population and Medicaid for the impoverished. In July 2010, the president signed the DODD-FRANK Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, a bill designed to promote financial stability by protecting consumers from financial abuses, ending taxpayer bailouts of financial firms, dealing with troubled banks that are "too big to fail," and improving accountability and transparency in the financial system - in particular, by requiring certain financial derivatives to be traded in markets that are subject to government regulation and oversight.

In November 2010, in an attempt to keep interest rates from rising and snuffing out the nascent recovery, the US Federal Reserve Bank (The Fed) announced that it would purchase $600 billion worth of US Government bonds by June 2011.

The United States is the leading industrial power in the world, highly diversified and technologically advanced; [[petroleum]], [[steel]], motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, [[electronics]], food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining.
<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html CIA - The world Factbook]</ref>

==Flag Description==
[[Image:50 star flag.png|left|thumb|150px|The [[Flag of the United States of America]]]]
{{main|Flag of the United States of America}}

Thirteen equal horizontal stripes of red (top and bottom) alternating with white; there is a blue rectangle in the upper hoist-side corner bearing 50 small, white, five-pointed stars arranged in nine offset horizontal rows of six stars (top and bottom) alternating with rows of five stars; the 50 stars represent the 50 states, the 13 stripes represent the 13 original colonies; known as Old Glory; the design and colors have been the basis for a number of other flags, including [[Chile]], [[Liberia]], [[Malaysia]], and [[Puerto Rico]].

{{Clear}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also==
[[File:Lawrence The Migration of the Negro.jpg|thumb|The Migration of the Negro by [[Jacob Lawrence]], 1940-1941.]]
*[[Pledge of Allegiance]]
*[[Famous American artists]]
*[[List of 50 states]]
*[[Americas]]
*[[America (continent)]]
*[[Columbia]]
*[[Gallery of American Masterpieces]]
*[[Christian Nation]]
*[[American conservatism]]
*[[Adair v. United States]]

==External links==
*[[CIA]] - [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html The World FactBook]
*[http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/616563/United-States United States.]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/america.htm America]
*[http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/flags_of_us_states.htm Flags of the U.S. States]
*[http://www.pibmug.com/files/map_test.swf Interactive map test of the 50 U.S. states]
*[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h445.html U.S. History]
*[http://www.theroot.com/buzz/who-owns-united-states Who Owns the United States?]
*[http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Wealth, Income, and Power.] by G. William Domhoff, University of California Santa Cruz.
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ Real Life and Death: the Bible, Israel, and America interplay]

{{USstates}}

[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:United States of America]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Talk:United States of America

2014-12-15T07:06:39Z

DevilDog: /* The most conservative nation */

[[Talk:United States of America/Archive 1]]

=Most Christian Nation?=

I don't believe we are the most Christian nation. Most polls I've researched put us at around 70% to 80%. This is compared to nations such as Ecuador, Samoa, or Bolivia with more than 90%.
:Then prove it instead of pushing what appears to be personal bias on the page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:45, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

What would constitute conclusive proof to you?
Also where is your claim of most Christian coming from? Do you mean by population, percentage, or are you in fact pushing your own bias? I have no problem with your info if you can prove it, it's really not a big deal to me.
:You said you researched polls. Which polls? Show me. As far as bias goes, you just came to this site and are pushing your own bias on us as if you own this place. It stops now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:03, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

First of all, you seem angry. Isn't this a wiki? So why are you attacking contributors who are trying to keep the page factual? You say that I'm being biased, so can you tell me how exactly correcting an unverified and false claim is biased? I'm sorry I've upset you; here are some of the sites I've found: http://www.gallup.com/poll/159548/identify-christian.aspx
http://www.operationworld.org/ecua (last link removed - dead link)

:Yes, this is a wiki, and no, you provided nothing at all to "keep this page factual" until I entered here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:24, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
::Perhaps it could be reworded as "Highly religious nation", or "very Christian nation" or something of the like. If you have any suggestions more eloquent than mine, please include, them. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:26, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Your's are fine, but in this case the point I made was the previous poster had insisted his entries were factual, but before I came in he did not have anything to back it up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 9 May 2013 (EDT)

==Longest running constitution?==

Not true. The San Marino constitution is MUCH older, dating to 1600 AD.

--[[User:Farmer88|Farmer88]] 09:13, 20 May 2012 (EDT)

==Category:Most Free?==
Various indexes don't rank the USA as the most free nation, the economic freedom index produced by the cato institute has the US at number 10, [[http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/efw2011/EFW-2011-chapter1.pdf]] and The Heritage foundation [[http://www.heritage.org/index/]] also has the US at 10. The democratic index produced by The Economist Intelligence Unit places the US at 17th place, based on the catagories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. [[http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf]]

== ''The most conservative nation'' ==

If the USA is really the most conservative nation, than why does it have a liberal president? --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 10:23, 22 March 2013 (EDT)
::This nation is anything but conservative. It is chock-full of the liberal mass. I would suggest taking the word out.
[[User:DevilDog|DevilDog]] 02:06, 15 December 2014 (EST)

Al Sharpton

2014-12-15T07:02:35Z

DevilDog: flow, add info

'''Al Sharpton''' (born 1954) is an [[United States|American]] liberal news personality, Christian [[minister]], and highly controversial African American [[Democrat]]ic politician based in [[New York City]] with a penchant for baiting conservatives and embarrassing liberals. Searching for opportunities to inflame racial tensions, he became a national celebrity in the 1980s by resorting to racial [[demagogue|demagoguery]]. Indeed, he has even been called a 'racial arsonist', who has led to the deaths of innocent people{{citation needed}}.

He currently hosts his own show on [[MSNBC]].

==Career==
Sharpton was licensed as a minister at the age of 9 as a [[Pentecostal]] and again as an adult as a [[Baptist]]. He has no formal religious training. As Sharpon's notoriety has increased he has spread out, running for President as a [[Democrat]] in 2004. Part of the joke of the late night talk show circuit was that Sharpton wanted his very first job to be [[President of the United States]]. Today he is a radio talk show host, guest TV speaker and [[liberal]] activist focused almost exclusively on racial issues.

==Tawana Brawley hoax==
In 1987, Sharpton spreads incendiary hate claiming Ms. Brawley, then a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. Sharpton got the defendants to refuse to cooperate with the police that could have led to quick indictments and justice and instead called for grand jury investigations. The [[Tawana Brawley case]] was later determined to be a fraud, 7 months into a grand jury investigation and after a waste of taxpayer money and bitter racial strife.

==Gavin Cato riots==
In 1991, a Hasidic [[Jewish]] driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child. Anti-semetic riots emerged with Sharpton leading demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace." An angry mob surrounds rabbi student Yankel Rosenbaum yelling "Kill the Jews!". Rosenbaum was stabbed to death.

==Freddy's Fashion Mart==
In 1995, in a dispute regarding a Jewish landlord raising the price of rent, Sharpton once again incites racial hatred. "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Picketers are protesting the store spitting on customers. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno. <ref>[http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby011703.asp The Sharpton hypocrisy] Jewish World Review, January 17, 2003</ref>
 
 
[[Image:Sharpton boycott.jpg|600px]]
{{Clear}}

The events where somebody died after protesting, Sharpton claims he wasn't present. Though he was present to incite the crowds, shout for justice and flame the fan of hate. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,568281,00.html?test=latestnews Sharpton Threatens to Sue Limbaugh Over His WSJ Column, FoxNews, October 17, 2009</ref>
He ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. Sharpton has owed the IRS back taxes for many years. Counting penalties it is currently 1.5 million dollars.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354846,00.html</ref>

==Criticism==

Michael Bloomberg said, "[He] doesn’t seem to focus on the kids who just don’t have the education that they need to compete and don’t have a structured family at home that can help." [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352507/bloomberg-numbers-dont-lie-stop-question-and-frisk-will-allen]

==Debates against Christopher Hitchens==

Al Sharpton has defended the greatness of [[God]] against [[atheist]] writer [[Christopher Hitchens]], who authored a book titled God Is Not Great and claimed religion ruins everything good.<ref>http://www.thegrio.com/video/when-christopher-hitchens-debated-al-sharpton.php</ref>

==Quotes==
On the fiscal policies of [[President of the United States|President]] [[George W Bush]]:
<blockquote>
"George Bush giving tax cuts is like Jim Jones giving Kool-Aid. It tastes good but it'll kill you."<ref>[http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2004/01/27/2004-01-27_the_tao_of_rev__al_adds_spic.html Shin, Paul. "THE TAO OF REV. AL Adds spice to Dems' bland stew"; ''New York Daily News'', January 27, 2004]</ref>
</blockquote>

On unequal results:
<blockquote>
When you see the racial disparities in the country that still exist. I`m talking about 2005 in terms of health care, in terms of economics, in terms of median income level, in terms of how we get bank loans or the criminal justice system. To not talk about it doesn`t mean we`re going to close the gap.<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/19/sbt.01.html CNN Transcript December 19, 2005]</ref>
</blockquote>

On 2004 Democratic candidate [[Howard Dean]]:
<blockquote>
I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don't be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I'd still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.<ref>[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html CNN Transcript January 23, 2004]</ref>
</blockquote>

In regards to universal health care legislation:
<blockquote>
"America Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected Obama" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/Manage/Videos/VideoGallery/Sharpton---America--Overwhelmingly-Voted-For-Socia.aspx Sharpton: America 'Overwhelmingly Voted For Socialism When They Elected Obama, NewsMax, March 22, 2010]</ref>
</blockquote>

==References==
<References/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/al-sharpton/ What Liberals Say - Al Sharpton], [[Accuracy In Media]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sharpton,Al}}

[[Category:Activists]]
[[category:Christians]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:2004 Presidential Candidates]]
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]

Talk:Al Sharpton

2014-12-15T06:59:20Z

DevilDog: hyphenated americans

So since when is being a minister not a job? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 21:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And now an ordained Christian minister cannot go under the category 'Christians'? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 15:26, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

=="African American"==
Is there any policy on this wiki stating that we have to refer to black americans as "African Americans"? Personally, I find the term offensive, but if we have to use I will. Otherwise, I will refer to black Americans as such.
[[User:DevilDog|DevilDog]] 01:59, 15 December 2014 (EST)

User:DevilDog

2014-12-15T06:56:41Z

DevilDog: Created page with "Prior-service US Marine and current county-level law enforcement officer."

Prior-service US Marine and current county-level law enforcement officer.