Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Aston Martin

2008-04-24T19:22:44Z

Heffalump:

'''Aston Martin''' is a British sports car maker famous for Vantage and DB9 models.

Aston Martin

2008-04-24T19:22:16Z

Heffalump: New page: '''Aston Martin''' is a British sports car maker famous for vantage and DB9 models.

'''Aston Martin''' is a British sports car maker famous for vantage and DB9 models.

User talk:Heffalump

2008-04-24T19:18:44Z

Heffalump:

Hey you deleted my comments on the talk page and called it "reverting edits by trolls." One of my comments was responding to a troll but the other one was serious. It's ok, but just so you know, I'm not a troll... [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 11:28, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, It was not personal.--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 15:18, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Stacw

2008-04-21T18:51:35Z

Heffalump: New page: == Edit war == Stacw, I am not getting into an edit war with you. Heffalump is not a joke name. It is my nick name (not my choice of course)--~~~~

== Edit war ==

Stacw,

I am not getting into an edit war with you. Heffalump is not a joke name. It is my nick name (not my choice of course)--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:30:41Z

Heffalump: Reverting to an earlier version by Aschlafly

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes. The ''Time'' reviewer, having put words in Stein's mouth, then claims that this supposed misrepresentation is a typical example, probably hoping that potential viewers will choose not to watch the movie. Actually, all it shows is that ''Time'' is so desperate to keep people fooled about the weaknesses of the theory of evolution that they will stoop to misquotation and character assassination.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human," a shockingly ignorant claim that denies its unique horror:

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T18:27:13Z

Heffalump: /* Wikipedia chimes in */

Page has become a vandalism magnet - which, by the way, proves the thesis of the movie: people want to shut Stein up instead of answering his points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:43, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Categories==
There is already a page on [[Expelled]]. Merge the categories over here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:14, 2 January 2008 (EST)

== Including Criticism ==

I have to disagree with [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&curid=55627&diff=388348&oldid=388346 this edit.] While I don't think the critics' arguments have merit, I think we should include them. People who believe in creationism or intelligent design have nothing to hide; let's not appear that we do, by removing a criticism section.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 13:47, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:See [[strawman fallacy]]. I don't know that the film portrays intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory to evolution. According to what I've read so far, it portrays the establishment as '''suppressing''' discussion of whether there can '''be''' any such alternatives. Do you see the difference? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Oops. You're right; that doesn't bear on the movie, it bears on the theory. Good call on removing it, sorry. Thank you!-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 14:01, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Counterarguments==

Has anyone argued that the film's thesis is untrue? Or are we just going to get the usual liberal backlash complaining that interviewees were "tricked" into exposing the truth? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:30, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:The main point of the film is that there's a vast, far-reaching conspiracy by the Evolutionists to stifle the teaching of the idea that a magical man created everything exactly as it is now. As for proving it untrue... Well, how can we possibly prove there ISN'T A conspiracy against the teaching of unscientific dogma under the guise of science? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:: You should take up cricket: You're good at putting a negative spin on things! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: Why thank you, Philip. Somebody here needs to take off the rose coloured glasses, yes? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Or clean their glasses. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:35, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: You're not very good with metaphors, are you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: Hmmmm. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:59, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Bribery==
Oh deary me. I cite the website itself with its message of "Force kids to watch our film and get money!" and you still revert my edit stating that the producers have been ACCUSED of attempted bribery. Tell me, Philip, what would be a better source than the website in question? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:40, 5 March 2008 (EST)
:The problem is not (this time) with the choice of web-site, but with what it's claimed to be saying. The site says nothing about bribing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:37, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::Ah, yes. Encouraging mandatory field trips (Question 2.) and saying the schools can return the ticket stubs for donations '''certainly''' isn't bribery. Aside from that, I said that that's the site that was cited. How about I simply add that they've been accused with no source? Hmm? Would that appease you? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 10:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::: The main definition of "bribe", according to my dictionary, is "any valuable consideration given or promised for ''corrupt behaviour'' in the performance of any official or public duty" (my emphasis), and this is what use of the word here would suggest. Yet there is no basis for putting that in the article, beyond a non-notable blog. Therefore, it should not go in, full stop. What ''could'' go in is a mention along the lines that the producers of the movie are encouraging schools to take their students to see it, but I don't really think that's of sufficient relevance to warrant a mention. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::It seems to match the definition given perfectly. What's your problem, then? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
::::: My problem is that it ''doesn't' match the definition, unless you have an odd definition of "corrupt behaviour". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause.

What we need for this article is a discussion (or better yet, a '''description''') of the thesis and the specific points made in the film - one which regrettably I have not seen yet. Along with this, we welcome any reports of noteworthy critiques of the film's thesis.

Complaints by the group which in engages in censorship, that they were tricked into testifying against themselves, are irrelevant. "No fair! I thought I was bragging, not confessing!"

Our mission here is to provide trustworthy information. So unless Dawkins, et al., are '''taking back''' what they said, then the lack of candidness on the part of the producer's is hardly germane. Unless you want to make an argument that academic dishonesty is so prevalent, so cavalier, and so devious that exposing it requires extraordinary detective work! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:"Subsidizing the exposure of censorship seems to be what you oppose. Sounds like you're only against "bribery" when it opposes your cause." Please, show me where I've encouraged bribery to support my "cause."
:So... In order to expose the academic dishonesty of this secret cabal, you must use academic dishonesty? The ends don't justify the means, my tinfoil hat wearing friend. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:03, 6 March 2008 (EST)

::What standard of [[academic dishonesty]] do you suggest we '''all''' avoid while collaborating here? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
::: He was blocked for 3 months, so you'll be waiting a while for an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Not the classiest way to win an argument. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Stating my reasons ==

I changed some wording that may make me seem like a liberal...I'm not. I simply did so in order to make the article as unbiased as possible. If you want proof of my views look at all the trouble I've gotten into on the Wikipedia version of this talk page. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 09:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
: I don't think it's serious enough to revert, but in doing so the wording now gives the impression that it doesn't necessarily succeed in this. Not having seen the film, I can't really comment on the accuracy of that, but Conservapedia aims to be accurate rather than neutral, and if being neutral gives a false impression, then it's not for the better.
: You also added a line about criticism, footnoted to a paragraph that said nothing about the criticism, and which had no source. Could you clarify that please?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
:The Orlando Sentinel's movie reviewer snuck into a private screening and then blasted the film in his reviews. Several other editors have done the same. We were talking about it over at wikipedia and I couldn't find the source cite. So I took a quote we we were discussing at the talk page and used it as the temporary source. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I've always found that its better to say that something attempts to do something than to say it does something. If you say it does something than it someone will come along and claim that it doesn't. Its just a way to be safe. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 14:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:Where does your last reference come from? You quote it, but you don't state the source. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

So we should say that NASA ''attempted'' to send men to the moon rather than saying that they actually did? The point is, we say things as though they are true when we are satisfied that they ''are'' true, and by that I don't mean that ''nobody'' disputes it (some argue, for example, that NASA didn't really send men to the moon). At Conservapedia we reject a lot of ideological objection. A lot of the objection to things like this movie are ideological. That's not to say, of course, that the people objecting are wrong; we still have to be careful to ensure that what we say is correct, but we don't qualify statements that we believe are clearly true just because people with a different ideology object. However, in this case, as I said, I've not seen the movie (and presumably nobody else here has yet), so I can't say whether it does succeed in its objective.

To clarify some of that, when a court decides if a defendant is guilty of a criminal offence, it does so "beyond reasonable doubt". When a court decides who is at fault in a civil matter, it does so on the basis of probabilities. In neither case are the matters normally settled with absolutely no doubt at all. If they were that clear, the criminal defendant would plead guilty and the civil participants would not even bring the matter to court, but settle it themselves. In both cases, the court decides according to the level of "proof" appropriate to the circumstances. Note also that the court is unable to test the matter scientifically. The court is making its decision on a unique past event, and that event is not repeatable; it's not able to be studied in a scientific way. (This doesn't deny that scientific tests can be made about some of the supporting evidence, such as DNA found at the scene.) Similarly, whether this movie achieves its results, although not a past event, is difficult if not impossible to determine in a scientific way, as it concerns people's motives (i.e. it likely does demonstrate suppression and persecution, but it's further arguing that this is deliberate. How do you scientifically test for deliberateness?) But this lack of ability to scientifically test does not prevent courts from making decisions, and neither should it prevent this encyclopedia from stating what is clearly the case (on those occasions when it ''is'' clearly the case), regardless of the objections of people with opposing ideological views.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

== opps ==

My mistake..
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

==Disagreement and condemnation==

I'd like to see a division in the article, between actual disagreements and mere condemnation. After all, the whole point of the movie is that ID opponents never take on ID directly but merely condemn it. Where are the specific rebuttals of the movie's main point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I'm happy to debate with you about the merits of the article. However, it seems to me that you block anyone who tries to do that. If you're willing to not block me, and listen to me in good faith, I'll try to abide by 90/10 as well. Are you willing to listen, or am I going to be expelled, too?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ha, ha, nice try. You condemn without giving evidence - precisely what the movie complains of. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Seriously, what would you like me to answer? I can tell you that scientists certainly take on ID directly - for example, in response to the "irreducible flagellum" argument, a great amount of research has been generated which parses the variety of intermediate forms between "nothing" and "flagellum," and scientists have identified each and specified their independent uses. I'm looking for the source right now.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 11:55, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Inter alia, a director of the NCSE assembled this accessible document [http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html here], which explains how the gradual evolution of the flagellum is possible. Additionally, there are a couple of easy-to-understand arguments against irreducible complexity - namely, if all flagella are irreducibly complex, and therefore "designed," how come there are so many different types or assemblies of flagella? Why are there different "styles" of flagella, functioning in different ways, which still perform the same task today? Evolutionary biology suggests that "convergent evolution" - different processes working on different organisms which, by virtue of the end product's desirability, produce a similar result - would have exactly this type of result. How does intelligent design explain that?-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

The movie said people are pressured to keep quiet about their scientific disagreements about evolution. How does your response relate to this point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:I don't appreciate the "yawn" edit comment.
:You said that evolutionists never take on ID, head-on, scientifically. I just did, right? And proved that scientists do, right?
:Also, if the claim is that ID creationists are being "expelled" for their ''bona fide'' scientific position, what I've proved is that their position, if scientific at all, is ''bad'' science, and therefore their alleged termination wasn't "discrimination," but termination for failing to live up to professional standards... just like a history teacher being fired for denying the holocaust. After all, ID is a negative argument: once a valid positive surfaces, to continue to argue the negative and pretend the positive doesn't exist is just ignorance.-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 12:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::This latest edit of yours isn't borne out by your ability to debate the merits on the talk page :-/-[[User:Cdesign|Cdesign]] 14:44, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

More like a journalist fired for questioning Senator Clinton's tarmac terrorist story. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:47, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Copyright infringements==
I noticed that someone removed the piece about the movie using plagiarized animation material from Harvard. There is also another issue that the movie used John Lennon's "Imagine" without getting the rights as well as well as some other song "All these Things That I Have Done" by the Killers. Since the original material was removed from the article is it allowed to put these issues back in?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You may put in any trustworthy information. I will remove anything which is false, misleading or inadequately sourced.

:If you know anything about [[metabolism]] that you can explain in terms a high school student can understand, I'd rather you worked on that. See recent changes for a draft. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:49, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839097431221369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Wall street journal]? Would this count?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 11:58, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Ed, what was false or inadequately sourced about my original edit? Someone accused the film's producers of copyright infringement,and I sourced the legal notice sent to them. The producers filed a counter-suit claiming they didn't, and I sourced that as well. The fact that this is unresolved is just that, a fact - it's wrong to assume that the producers of ''Expelled'' are innocent (or guilty for that matter) until the issue is settled in the courts. I've restored the edit, and if you can present a fact-based reason why it should be removed, I'm open to revising it accordingly. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:15, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Slashdot effect==

I'll probably protect this article tomorrow, when [[lusers]] start pouring in after watching the premiere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Probably a good idea, at least until the publicity dies down.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 20:19, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

==Reviews==
Ed - regarding your pulling of the Time magazine review, the fact that ID is explained on the website isn't a good reason to pull the reviewers comment. The movie should stand or fall on its own merits, as that's all the viewer's going to see. So while I've removed the inflammatory section you objected to, I'd ask that it be put back in - or any other quotes from any of the reviews, in fact. These reporters are mostly the movie critics of their publications, and it's only fair to hear their comments on the movie itself, even if we don't agree with them - remember, this is only a movie, and even if you like its premise, you might not like the movie, as a movie. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:07, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Ed, I found a document at the movie's website - it's promotional material for the film, the [http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Leader's Guide]. Although we haven't seen the movie yet, obviously the Leader's Guide and movie are a coordinated effort. [[User:MakeTime|MakeTime]] 21:30, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't see your point. Many evolutionists have claimed that life was magically generated on its own from a primordial soup. Experiments have even attempted to duplicate it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:33, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::The ''Time'' reviewer knocked down a straw man of his own creation, by putting words into Ben Stein's mouth: characterizing him as "asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup".

:::The leader's guide - quoted at Rat. Wiki - says: "Darwinian evolution argues that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals, and that over billions of years, this biological accident gave rise to all of life, including humans."

:::The contrast is between '''cell ... arisen whole''' and '''life arose'''.

:::It's not "fair to hear their comments" on what the movie '''didn't say''' - but if they have comments on the movie itself I don't mind those. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:38, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to debate ID, not at all - let's not forget those words are someone else's words, not mine. Disagree with him if you wish, but don't shoot me - the messenger. I was simply asking that a quote of a journalist's review of the film not be removed simply because one is offended by their negative review of the film? I think the studios wanted to rip up all the review pages when the reviews ofIshtar or Gigli came out? Sure! My own point is one and only one- just because you want to like a movie, doesn't mean it's going to be a good movie. That's all - I'm staying out of the ID debate. MakeTime, as [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: We don't post falsehoods. If a review makes a false claim, then it would generally not be posted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Fair enough, I have no problem with that. But then neither you, nor Ed, nor I have seen the movie, and the reviewer has. Perhaps Stein does indeed ask "for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". I don't know that he doesn't, and no-one else does yet either. And since other reviewers refer to the same fact, and they have all seen the movie, perhaps he does? [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:50, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: But evolutionists do believe and teach that life arose from a primordial soup. They do not teach that there was divine intervention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::The actual words used by the reviewer are "[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup." But Ed suggested that this was clearly not so - despite not having seen the film, unlike the reviewer. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 21:56, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Actually, I will probably need to retract, as it seems Ed has seen the movie. He states quite clearly [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=434051&oldid=434027 here] that the movie does not say that. Although, it does appear he uses the leader's Guide as reference, rather than the movie itself. Which, again, the reviewer has seen. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:00, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

No, I haven't seen the movie. If I've made an error here, by assuming that it conforms to the Leader's Guide, I stand corrected. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:04, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Ah, OK Ed, thanks for clarifying that. It'd be great if in future you didn't try and post [[deceit|deceitful]] information you're not party to in the Trustworthy Encyclopedia - or ban users on the basis of your own ignorance. I hope you enjoy the movie. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: TakeTwo, you're not addressing the falsehood. Evolutionists do claim that life arose from a primordial soup, and they teach that. There is nothing "mistaken" by criticizing that view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::ASchlafly, I wasn't, and am not, going to get into the ID debate. Others are more qualified than me to do so. My problem is that Ed Poor claimed to have seen the movie when he hadn't, pulled a quote because he essentially claimed that a journalist at a major national new source was lying, and then banned me when I pointed out that it was the journalist's words, not mine, he was disagreeing with. [[User:TakeTwo|TakeTwo]] 22:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: TakeTwo, the quote ''is'' nonsensical and should be deleted, and I'm not encouraged by your refusal to address why. Instead, you launch into an attack against Ed. Decisions can be right for the wrong reason, and your harping on a claim that the reason was wrong does not address the bigger point that the decision to remove the falsehood was right.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

But what is the reviewer saying here?
#That Stein is right, except for the passage of time?
#That Stein is wrong?

Evolution says that life came out of the "primordial soup" '''gradually'''. The Leader's Guide points out that ID questions how this could ever have happened.

Some evolutionists say that "[[biological evolution]]" only addresses the issue of how the first living cell gave rise to other forms of life - but others insist that "evolution" includes the origin of life as well. Anyway, ID addresses both issues scientifically, and that's what "the academy" refuses to address - expelling ID advocates rather than discussing their theory that life is too complex to have evolved - either (1) out of the soup originally or (2) from the first cell to humans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:27, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

My reply to "TakeTwo" and his socks:

: Your account should be blocked. I've repeatedly addressed your point and you repeatedly decline to address mine. The review makes a false statement, regardless of what Stein said. We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote. This separates us from Wikipedia, which does post falsehoods if they can be found in printed publications. We do not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::''We don't post false or misleading statements, regardless of the accuracy of the quote.''
:::This is a good quote. I have a feeling you and I will be seeing a LOT of it in the future. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:02, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==Leader's Guide==

I noticed that the article references a "Leader's Guide" accompanying the movie "Expelled". May I add an external link to this document? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:51, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:What is the external link? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:07, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
::[http://www.getexpelled.com/_downloads/expelled_leadersguide.pdf Here,] I believe. Appropriate? It raises a lot of interesting general points. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 01:38, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

== Variety... Liberal??? ==

The article calls Variety Magazine liberal. Are they talking about the entertainment industry magazine with the famous slang headlines?

It' an industry business magazine, more like "Steel Makers Today" than "Entertainment Weekly." While its movie or TV reviews probably show biases one way or the other, the magazine itself, the majority of its content, shows no actual bias other than being PRO-business. It simply logs the activities and business dealings of the entertainment business, including those of the very conservative Rupert Murdoch. Chances are, the magazine is as likely to give a positive spin on stories about media consolidation or tax breaks for American media production, not real liberal positions.

I know this site has point of view but not every other media source has to be sifted into "conservative" or "liberal."

: Yes, Variety is a liberal magazine, to appeal to its very liberal audience/industry. You won't find a pro-life piece in there or any other conservative information, because thousands would cancel their subscriptions and advertisers would pull their ads if that ever happened, and the publisher knows it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:53, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::While you won't find a pro-life piece in there you wouldn't find a pro-choice (or anti-life if you will) it is a industry publication ''not'' a newspaper. The only news and opinon it would deal with is movie industry related news and opinon. The bad review this movie recieved will not be read by people outside the industry, although this will impact theature managers decision and they may not show it. Although it looks like the movie is being panned everywhere so this probably won't hurt it much. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 20:14, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

: "DaBoss3", either you're clueless or you're in [[liberal denial]]. The readership of and advertisers for the rag "Variety" are overwhelmingly [[liberal]], and you can bet the publisher caters to its customers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:50, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::The advertising on their [http://www.variety.com/ website] is all "we'll help you break into the industry for money" stuff. It is mostly articles and blogs on the industry. It has a small readership because it has a small target, people intimately connected with the movie industry. It probably does meet your "hollywood values" stuff, but it is not a left wing paper on the level of the New York Times which wants to influence opinon. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Also as a later sidenote I would care if you did not make fun of my name. I used to get teased at school for having the first name Da. I asked my parents why they called me this and said because your father and grandfather's name. I thought someone call Aschlafly would understand. [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 00:38, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Is your last name "Boss" also? [[Deliberate ignorance]] or persistent clinging to a falsehood, such as your claim that Variety magazine is not liberal, unfortunately invites poking fun of your claim to be "Da Boss". Why is it that liberals pick such names?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:32, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Yes my surname is Boss. What is yours Aschlafly? Also I find you claim that my parents were (your American version) liberals offensive. That are staunch [[Liberal Party of Australia]] voters.

:::: Also you called me deliberatly ignorant. Did you look at the website link I gave you? The paper is nothing but fluff and industry news, its kind of hard to call that liberal (although I suppose you would). I and anyone who hasn't divided the world in to red and blue would call it [[apolitical]]. (I notice you don't even have an article on it so I will help you). [[User:DaBoss3|DaBoss3]] 19:27, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Your name looks like a pseudonym, so the burden of proof is on you. Try to be more polite, too.

:::::As to whether ''V[[ariety]]'' is liberal, if you can show that it is neutral or conservative, I'd love to see evidence for it in our article about it, whenever someone gets around to writing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:51, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==Film Reviews==
I felt that the movie reviews section was clearer when was divided into positive and negative sections--[[User:GabharGneasach|GabharGneasach]] 15:12, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:I want to take my kids to this tonight, and it would be really useful for us, and probably for the movie itself, if you could include one of those movie sites here - if you could put back the RottenTomatoes link, people can go there and find their local theaters, buy tickets, see showtimes,etc. I know the reviews for the film from those stupid liberal sites and papers may not be good, but that doesn't bother any of us as we know what we want to see. (And, in fairness to them, they work technically very well indeed!) I always use rottentomatoes.com to get an quick overview of opinions on a movie before I bring my kids to it, and I think we all knew Expelled was going to be attacked by liberal movie reviewers, so I'm not bothered by it. So I think it would be a good idea to have that link there. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 15:55, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you can't figure out how to google stuff like that, I'm not even going to accuse you of being a liberal plant. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:57, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::I think we should all be doing everything we can to help promote this movie, and I simply thought it would help towards that end. You say I wouldn't know how to Google it, but I do - and you end up at Rottentomatoes.com! It's the #1 listed movie review site. I've used it for a few years now. Wouldn't you want to have that on the article? I think it would help. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:11, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::SL, there is a link on our main page to movie theater sites, which I will repeat here just for your benefit. [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php]. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:30, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, OK, yes, I suppose that will work fine, thank you Brian. Shouldn't it be in the article rather than only on the Main page? I wasn't aware of it. [[User:SpiritualLife|SpiritualLife]] 16:37, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::As this is essentially an encyclopedia, it should not be expected to reflect fast changing items like football league standings. The fast changing stuff is posted on our front page and links to movie showings are more appropriately placed there. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:27, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

I was going to see the movie yesterday, but work intervened. And today I gotta do something for church. I might not even see the film till Monday evening.

I plan to see it in the most liberal section of New York City, the [[Upper West Side]]. I wonder if Stein will get booed by the audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

==If you watched the movie...==
If you '''watched''' the movie, add your comments to this section. If you didn't watch the movie or try to turn this section into a debate session, your comments will be removed.

I watched the premier last night and I enjoyed this movie. [[Ben Stein]] did a great job exposing the scientific community's [[censorship]] of [[Intelligent Design]]. Ben also explained the difference between [[creationism]] and Intelligent Design. Ben also was successful in demonstrating the link between [[atheism]] and the [[theory of evolution]].

I personally believe in creationism and I feel that not allowing the teaching of Intelligent Design is liberal censorship. I applaud Ben for exposing this liberal censorship. I applaud [[Conservapedia]] from promoting this great [[documentary]]. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:39, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks for the positive review, Crocoite. I hope to see the movie this weekend.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
I watched it last night. I theater hopped so I didn't have to pay Stein for the ticket; I advise you all to do the same, as it's not worth your real money. The movie is a travesty. It's basically clips of Stein talking interspersed, in an amateurish way, with clips of the Holocaust. He doesn't try to make an argument as much as shock you with unaffiliated images. -[[User:Seb|Seb]] 10:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

: Typical ... [[liberal]] advice. I'm not convinced you even saw the movie, and your advice to rip Stein off is not going to remain on this site. Give us a good reason why your account should not be blocked, if you can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::Excuse me? Assuming you were serious, isn't that an example of "guilty until proven innocent"? Not to mention a (sadly) somewhat typical double standard.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Since when is a conservapedia account a civil right? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I took my family to see Expelled last night, and I was surprised at how liberal and obscene it was. They don't mention anything about how Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior, and they include secular music from "The Killers" (how could you allow a band with that name to be included in a Christian movie?) and John Lennon. I thought I would not have to cover my kids eyes and ears for once in a movie theater, but I was proved wrong with this one. I guess the next time a documentary comes out exposing the evil of evolution, I will stay home with my family and watch Passion of the Christ instead. At least that movie has a strong Christian message. -Nathan

I don't think Expelled was meant to be a Christian movie. I just saw it on saturday and I got the impression that the movie was not trying to support the Christian six-day creation, nor did it put forward Christianity in any way-- it merely exposes the intolerant attitude atheist evolutionists have towards intelligent design. In fact labeling the ID movement as "Christian" and "Extremist" is one of the ways that evoltionists try to discredit the science behind intelligent design. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 13:45, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

: Odd reaction, Nathan. I haven't heard that reaction from any Christians I know. Do you shield your kids' eyes and ears when they are in public school also, or when they watch television??? Consider me skeptical about your comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:29, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, my kids attend a private Christian school, and I only allow them to watch Christian shows and movies on television (and only Godtube and Conservapedia online). Consider me skeptical of your true faith in Christianity for thinking that a movie full of secular music and absent of the Lord's message is good. Actually, you stated that you haven't even seen the movie yet, but you're still on here causing controversy; it clearly states at the top that this forum is for people who have seen the movie. It is not for people who want to debate something that they haven't even seen. -Nathan --[[User:john1989|john1989]] 19:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

I have seen the movie, and though I am a Christian I thought it was an exellent movie that did stand up for truth. I have trouble being sceptical about anyone's faith just because they liked a movie that wasn't explicitly Christian. There is a fine line between prudence and legalism.

:::Unfortunately, there is no news of a theatre release in the UK. I may have to buy it on DVD in order to see it. A disappointment, because watching a significant event in the company of others is more uplifting than watching it on ones own. :( [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Could any of you who have seen the movie comment on whether or not the ''Time'' review misrepresented Stein? The article here specifically claims it does (saying ''Time'' put words into Stein's mouth, misquoting him, and indulging in character assassination), and it was the cause of much debate here on the Talk pages a few days ago. The ''Time'' review certainly says that "[Stein...asks], for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup". Is that a true representation of what Stein says? Does he actually pose that question, or have ''Time'' deliberately misquoted him? It would be a rather serious offense if they had, and worth contacting them about. [[User:Billa |Billa ]] 14:20, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::I thought the movie was interesting and thought-provoking. My wife came to the profound realization that domesticated species (in which man controls the genetics of the creatures) are in many ways inferior to wild species. Compare the wild turkey or wild cow to the domesticated turkey and domesticated cow and you have an example of what happens when Man controls the gene pool.

::At any rate, I think Stein did a masterful job of presenting the case but he revealed to me the fundamental question of ID as a science (rather than as a belief). Five hundred years ago science banished spells, fairies, ghosts or anything unseen from science. This line of thinking has brought us to our present day point of understanding. We're now ready for a paradigm shift that is just as profound as when spiritualism was separated from science. Science is ready for the skeptical inclusion of spiritualism as part of science. We've matured enough to consider the possibility that God may be in the machine. Even the most ardent skeptic has to agree that it only makes sense to examine the possibility, because we can not prove either side with any certainty.

::I highly recommend this movie and would contribute to a fund to pay for high school students to attend this film. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonably well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. Oh and the comments from "Nathan" above are clearly part of a hoax by somebody taking the mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:25, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: Everwill, thanks much for your comment and your suggestion of a fund for teenagers to see the movie is a great idea. I'd like to take my class of 40 to see it. KeithJoseph, the second half of your posting makes sense but your first half gives no reasons and does not make sense. "Unconvincingly hysterical"??? That's a new expression that I find incoherent.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:29, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

I simply mean that, despite the force of its hysteria, it fails to convince. I don't pretend that the phrase os worthy of Wittgenstein, but it does, I think, make sense (even if you disagree). [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:40, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: [[Evolutionists]] are calling the movie "hysterical", but it's obvious that they are not amused by it. Now you seem to be giving a less obvious meaning to "hysterical", but your new meaning is inconsistent with your adjective "unconvincingly". Perhaps you also found the movie to be "irrationally rational"??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:12, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, don't you mean adverb? The word unconvincingly, in this context, is an adverb; if we are to nitpick about grammar, then maybe you should be more careful in your own editing process.--[[User:Claypool|Claypool]] 13:36, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Erm? I don't really want to get too caught up in semantics, but you seem to be assuming that I was using "hysterical" in the informal sense, meaning amusing, whereas I meant that Stein exhibits -- to quote the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of hysteria -- "exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement". I really, really wish I had used a different phrase now. Can we pretend I said "unconvincing in its scaremongering" and leave it at that? Good grief! To quote Monty Python, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition. Mind you NOBODY expects ... [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 15:26, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

: Your phrase "unconvincingly hysterical" is so absurd that I'm skeptical you even saw the movie. If you did, I doubt you saw it with an open mind if that is your analysis. Your phrase is too ridiculous to be genuine, in my opinion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:40, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:: I am utterly dumbfounded. I offer a brief review -- admittedly negative -- and, for my troubles, I receive a stream of abuse concerning some supposed grammatical infelicity and I am then called a liar. How, exactly, did your puzzling objections to that phrase lead you to suppose I hadn't seen the film? (Not a rhetorical question.) I saw the film in New York City, which I am visiting for a press junket, and will happily answer any questions on it to prove my honesty. I am happy to say that, to this point, most American conservatives I've encountered have been very civil. You are, happily, not representative in that respect. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 19:55, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

::: There is nothing uncivil about my remarks. Your phrase about the movie is so absurd that it suggested to me a lack of being a genuine review. If you did see the movie, then I'm convinced you didn't see it with an open mind, and nothing in your "review" suggests otherwise to me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

While I am aware that I have just come off a block and I also am also totally focused on making more substantial edits I still must say that, Aschlafly, your critique of the above gentlemans grammatical use is ''slightly'' childish. We are all adults here and KeithJoseph had a legitimate point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:56, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::I must concur that Aschlafly's comments seem a bit uncivil ... at first blush. But, there is a certain incivility to calling a bluff in any forum. I cannot remember how many times I sat and politely listened to bold-faced lies. I knew there was no point in letting the braggart or liar know how/why I knew his statements were false so I let them float. In this case, after a bit of thinking, I tend to agree with Aschlafly's assertion that KeithJoseph did not actually watch the movie.

::In ''Expelled'', the camera work is at times annoying and dizzying, with far too many cuts and angle changes. KeithJoseph describes the movie as "reasonably well-made". I would describe it as poorly-made and obvious low budget. This tends to support Aschlafly's theory about KeithJoseph.

::Secondly, KeithJoseph then goes on to describe the piece as "hysterically unconvincing". I have to admit that I heard some young girls laughing in the theatre, but the timing of the laughter seemed to indicate that they agreed with Stein's thesis as the girls laughed early on at some of the most ridiculous atheistic statements in the movie.

::I heard ZERO laughter when Stein was touring the concentration camps and examining where the logic of "natural selection" leads. A reasonable person could disagree with the movie for a number of reasons, but the movie never approached "hysterical" on any level or in any sense of the word. Thus, I tend to agree that KeithJoseph has not actually seen the film.

::This is not to say that reasonable people cannot criticize or disagree with the movie's premise. (For example, I think it was poorly made.) But the criticism should be accurate and reasonable to be taken seriously. For example, a perfectly reasonable comparison which I have read elsewhere is the comparison to Michael Moore's films. (Isn't it odd that Stein is now lumped in with Michael Moore by the same folks who agreed with Michael Moore?)

::At any rate, I have not watched any of Michael Moore's films because I don't want to fund a premise which I categorically reject. Therefore I will stand corrected if my assumptions about the content of Michael Moore's movies are wrong. It is my understanding Michael Moore uses his films to assert a particular point of view. Stein's film is much less ambitious.

::''Expelled'' does not attempt to prove that God exists or that Evolution is wrong. Stein focuses on freedom---the right of all Americans. He documents how scientists are being prevented from examining certain possibilities. Even if these scientists are "wrong" why can't they do research and examine theory? Any rational person must admit that it is possible that an intelligence designed the universe.

::''Expelled'' asks only this question: if ID is a possibility then why can't free scientists explore this possibility? That alone seems perfectly reasonable, and not hysterically unconvincing. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:34, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Couldn't have said it better myself. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy what you said into the body of the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: I am just speeding out the door and will have to wait until tonight to respond to the -- reasonably stated -- comments by Everwill above, but I must just come back to the, by now, very overworked, debate on my use of the word "hysterical". This may involve a distinction between British (or in my case, Irish) English and American English, but when I see the word "hysterical" my first instinct is that the writer is using it in its formal sense. In this case I was suggesting that Stein, despite his sang froid, was panicking unduly about a supposed threat to free speech. He was, in my view, being "hysterical". I never intended to make a comment on whether the film was funny or not and I am really amazed that everyone seems to have taken "hysterical" to mean "hysterically funny". I am even more amazed that so much attention has been focussed on one stray word. Is Bill Clinton editing this page? "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is". [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:07, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

::::::It's really not important what you want to parse [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysterical hysterical] into meaning. It means what it means. But I can accept your rephrasing at face-value and still find your statements do not jive with my understanding of reality.

::::::If by "hysterical" you meant "very", well you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Perhaps the reason I found Mr. Stein's arguments so ... er ... ''hysterically'' convincing, is because I have witnessed that Wall of Oppression first hand. I know that it exists because I have encountered those people who want to crush the idea of Intelligent Design. They have a blood-thirsty religious fanaticism propelling their point of view and they stand upon opinion as if it were fact.

::::::As an aside, I am no Young Earth Creationist. At times, in my life I'm not even sure I believed in a god, as I am forever repulsed by single-minded irrational attachment to dogma. As I learn more, I adjust my world view to accommodate additional facts. I see the YEC crowd as unbending and as unrealistic as the anti-ID atheists. I for one am in favor of letting the facts stand as they are, whether they support the Bible, Anton Levay or the atheist's manifesto. Facts are facts. I think that Stein has done a public service by uncovering the damaging effects of money and bias upon Big Science. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

And on it goes. The phrase I used was "unconvincingly hysterical" not "hysterically unconvincing". So it hardly seems likely that I meant it to mean "very". If you are going to pull my words apart then please pull apart the correct words. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 16:09, 21 April 2008 (GMT)

I watched the movie last night. It was a well-made movie; anyone who thinks otherwise is letting their world view and prejudice get in the way of their thinking. Ben Stein made the movie interesting and inspiring. I think the best argument put forth in the movie was not that ID is undeniable fact, but rather that we should have the freedom to express both sides of the argument. If the best Darwinists have is the idea that life came in on the backs of crystals or aliens made us, is this really too much to ask? And they're the ones calling the Bible a bunch of fairy tales XD. It just seems that they'll take anything BUT the Bible. I don't know what you think, but I think that's bad science and a little disturbing. --[[User:David R|David R]][[User talk:David R|talk]] 11:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==ID and science==

Physical science has self-imposed limits. ID says that limiting the search for explanations is a silly way to account for the appearance of [[design]]. Are criminology and archaeology sciences? Is [[Stonehenge]] properly considered to be ancient ruins, or must we look to physical causes like erosion. Okay, then how about [[crop circles]]? Caused by strange wind patterns, or more likely to be a hoax?

If there is the appearance of design, there must be a designer. Why should this eliminate design as a consideration? Is science judged on its implications? Its adherents don't do that, when it comes to [[Social Darwinism]] and the Nazi [[Holocaust]]. "You can't blame us theoreticians for the conclusions that others draw," they say? Then why should ID be any different?

Anyone who has a [[double standard]] has something to hide or an axe to grind, but scientific theories should stand up to scrutiny. Dismissing or expelling critics are illegitimate means of avoiding a debate over whether materialistic theories are sufficient to explain "apparent evolution". That's all the producers are saying, and every review which changes the subject '''proves their point'''. Putting words in Stein's mouth, telling us how "we already addressed this", etc., are all great debating tactics when you're on stage trying to fool the general public. But science should be above shoddy political tricks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:05, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Science limits itself to things that are [[falsifiable]].       Even science teachers and the scientific press get this wrong sometimes, but science's answer to "might there be an intelligent designer?" is ''not'' "no", it's "science doesn't have the tools to evaluate the answer to that question". It's not specific to ID either... if you asked science "is there an [[Falsifiable#Carl Sagan|invisible incorporeal dragon in my garage]]?", the answer would be "on a purely scientific basis, our tools aren't able to evaluate that question".

: The thing is, other fields in education ''are'' able to evaluate questions like that, so they're worth bringing up in the classroom. (science classrooms too, as long as there's an implicit understanding that the discussion is an interdisciplinary one, or that it's about the limits of science) --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 13:50, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::Finally, a voice of reason ... welcome back, Interiot! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:35, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Biblical position==
I added a comment that, from a Christian point of view, ID is as a false as evolution. Mr Rayment has just told me - in answer to a question about why the Gap theory is not given "equal time" here Quote:

but really, the YEC view is the only one that actually fits what the Bible says, so this encyclopedia is not going to treat other views as though they have equal validity.

Why, then, was my comment about ID being as false as evolution removed? It is obvious that ID has no validity, why not say so?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:22, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

:What part of ID is false (from a Christian point of view)? Surely not the part which says life is to complex to have come into being by natural forces and physical laws alone? If there's a Christian (or any other kind of Creationist) who disagreed, you would have named him. So your comment is not constructive - and is in fact unrelated to discussion about how to improve this article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::The excellent "Answers in Genesis" website criticizes ID [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0830_IDM.asp here] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/intelligent-design-movement here]. Some quotes are

::"Acceptance of ID thinking en masse could just as easily lead to New-Age or Hindu-like notions of creation, as well as weird alien sci-fi notions.3 In such instances, a Christian might well see that the metaphorical exorcism of one socio-philosophical demon would have achieved merely its replacement by others, possibly worse."

::and

::Proponents of ID fail to understand that a belief in long ages for the earth formed the foundation of Darwinism.5 If God’s Word is not true concerning the age of the earth, then maybe it’s not true concerning other events of the Creation Week; and maybe God was not a necessary part of the equation for life after all."[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:04, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Answers in Genesis is a resource, not the standard we measure against in our articles. ID, in its pure form, says nothing about specific theology. It simply states that when we take all of the evidence from our world and the universe around us, that it appears we were designed as the 'finished product' of life on our planet would not be what we see today in a solely naturalistic system without outside influence. This would agree with Young Earth Creationism, Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:07, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Yes, but Behe, the most well known proponent of ID, is certainly a supporter of, for example, Common Descent. He is one of the people mentioned (I believe) in the film. Presumably you would agree with me that he is wrong? And as wrong as the evolutionists?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:11, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Behe is probably the most famous ID proponent in modern times and the man most responsible for seeing Intelligent Design brought to the forefront. That being said, his personal views beyond the idea that there is a design have no importance in Intelligent Design itself. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:19, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::OK Your Mr Poor challenged me to find a Christian and or creationist source which criticized ID. Answers in Genesis is probably the most respected creationist source on the web. I have provided a couple of illustrative quotes which show their point of view. (There are many others that could be found, click the links and read the articles.) If ID only said that there is evidence of design then I would have no problem with it. But it says a lot more than that. It says long timescales and it says common descent. At least that is what the scientific version says. And, as far as I can tell, that is the version this film is about. The "scientific" one.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 15:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Again, ID, in its pure form, does not make those claims. You can have different versions within ID, but it's not fair to attribute any particular version as Intelligent Design while disregarding the views of others who also believe in Intelligent Design, but not as you have specified it. Within the secular/atheistic community, the complaint against ID is that it is Young Earth Creationism, just not specifically claiming 6000 years - which is very different from how you define it above. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
I can do not better than quote from that magnificent resource Answers in Genesis:

"the major problem with the ID movement is a divorce of the Creator from creation. The Creator and His creation cannot be separated; they reflect on each other."

and

"Ironically, despite already drawing the fire aimed at Genesis, the Bible and Christianity, many other prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of the recent creation of a good world, ruined by man’s Fall into sin. For tactical reasons, they have been urged (especially by their coolest and wisest head, Phil Johnson, who does not himself share that hostility) not to publicly condemn their Genesis-believing fellow travelers, although this simmering opposition has burst forth from time to time."

Surely it is obvious that there is a problem with ID?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 16:14, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure you're listening. Intelligent Design is the idea that the evidence in the world and cosmos shows shows that we are designed. Of course different people under that umbrella aren't going to agree with each other. So? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:28, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you'd like to mention in the [[Intelligent Design]] article the fact that it has been criticized by some elements within Christianity, I look forward to seeing that. Be sure, however, not to '''misrepresent''' this POV as a "standard view".

::Conservatives have varied opinions. Christians have varied opinions. We agree to disagree, rather than to claim that one view is held by all. (Aside from the basics, such as "God exists", of course! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:33, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Eugenics ==

We discuss the impact in Nazi Germany, but it didn't stop there. The United States had its own program to sterilize inferiors prior to World War II with some at the time even complaining that the Nazis were pulling ahead of us. The impact of evolutionary thought was taking hold across all Western culture. Thankfully that ended when the horrors of the Holocaust were seen, but it was certainly a striking time in our own history as well - and one that is usually ignored so as not to show the path we went down with "survival of the fittest" even in our own country. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:18, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

: Right. Fortunately, America had people who stood up to the movement and objected, like [[William Jennings Bryan]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:41, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia chimes in==
The movie's article on Wikipedia is highly biased (no surprise) and "semi-protected", which in practice means that ordinary people can't edit it. Sort of proves the film's point, I'd say.

: Right. That will be the next new point 1 in [[Bias in Wikipedia]]. All too predictable that Wikipedia would impose its bias with respect to this movie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:Whereas the Conservapedia article is unbiased and open for all to edit, yes? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 10:10, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

I created an account to edit this article, but it appears to be locked

: The entry was locked only for a very brief time and only due to vandalism. This is in contrast with Wikipedia, which locked its entry for an indefinite, continuing period for the purpose of ideological censorship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::Andy, this is one of the more dishonest things you've ever said on this site, and given [[Professor values|some of the things you say]], that's... well.
::Anyways, Wikipedia semiprotected the article. That means it's locked either to brand-new users (so wait a day and edit!) or unregistered users. It should be noted that Conservapedia doesn't even ''allow'' unregistered users to edit...ever... and the other form of semiprotection allows "regular people" to edit, if these "regular people" wait 24 hours. Seems doable, no?
::Now, by setting up a contrast between you and Wikipedia on this point, you seem to suggest that Conservapedia [[Homosexuality|never]] [[Evolution|locks]] [[Atheism|articles]], [[Intelligent design|ever]]. Not only does Conservapedia have a large number of permanently locked articles, but more, you've been known to blacklist.... certain.... URLs that are critical of you, and block users for disagreeing with your ideology, or edit their user pages to expunge said criticism.
::If you're really going to try to argue that you're open to criticism, and tolerant of dissent, and opposed to censorship merely because of disagreement... well... the record is 100% against you.
::All of this begs the question that Ben Stein asks - all people who criticize you on the site ask is that they be given a fair chance for their ideas to be heard, researched, debated, and maybe won. What the deuce are you so afraid of? Do you somehow know that they'll... win?-[[User:Stacw|Stacw]] 13:32, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Wikipedia locked the "Expelled" entry to censor insertion of balanced material. Wikipedia welcomes edits by unregistered users ... as long the edits are [[liberal]], whereupon Wikipedia acts like it is not responsible for the smears that result. So, yes, the biased locking policy of Wikipedia underscores how one-sided it is.

::: The bottom line is that the Wikipedia entry on "Expelled" is predictably and extremely biased. No one can seriously dispute that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:55, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Let's assume that the locking of the article on WP was to promote bias. Is the permanent locking of all controversial articles on CP ''not'' bias? Is the suppression of dissent here somehow excusable?
::::Does one hand know what the other is doing? I look forward to you proving my point by blocking me.-[[User:Stacw|Stacw]] 14:12, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
As someone who has worked on both the Wikipedia and Conservapedia articles on this topic, I can attest that the Wikipedia article is indeed highly biased (though it is getting better, with collaborative editing), but this article has problems with bias (in the opposite direction) as well, as some editors seem to have introduced personal opinion and unsourced speculation since I last worked on the article. I'm currently trying to improve this situation. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 14:05, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Imposing your view point ==

Walton One, you are the one actually trying to impose your view point. This is a conservative encyclopedia and we cannot treat it like your personal propoganda. Please do not impose a liberal point of view. It is conservapedia not liberalpedia. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:27, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

2008-04-21T17:57:00Z

Heffalump: Undo revision 436267 by Special:Contributions/Walton One (User talk:Walton One)

'''''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed''''' is a [[documentary]] charging [[Darwinists]] with suppressing and persecuting opponents in order to avoid discussing the scientific challenges which [[Intelligent Design]] presents to the [[Theory of Evolution]].
The film's premise is that scientists have been expelled like naughty children from schools, universities and the scientific community, merely for daring to ask inconvenient questions.<ref>[http://www.expelledthemovie.com/news.php Expelled the movie website]</ref>
The documentary is hosted by [[Ben Stein]] and was released Friday, April 18, 2008.

* '''You can locate a theater near you by state or zip code [http://expelledthemovie.com/theaterap.php here].'''

The film is described in its online trailer as “a startling revelation that freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions.” <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2</ref>

The film cites several academic disputes to argue that [[scientist]]s and [[educator]]s who promote intelligent design are persecuted by the scientific establishment.<ref name=pressrelease>{{cite web |author=Lesley Burbridge-Bates|publisher=[http://www.premisemedia.com/ Premise Media]|date=[[2007-08-22]] |url=http://www.premisemedia.com/EXPELLED-PressRelease_08-22-07.pdf |title=''Expelled'' [[Press Release]] |accessdate=2007-09-29 |format= |work=}}</ref>
Examples given by the film include [[Richard Sternberg]], a [[biology|biologist]] and a journal editor and research associate at the [[National Museum of Natural History]], and [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], a pro-[[Intelligent design]] [[astrophysics|astrophysicist]] denied tenure at [[Iowa State University]] in 2007.<ref name="nyt">[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/science/27expelled.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life's Origin], New York Times, 27 September 2007</ref>

In the film's trailer, Stein states that there are "people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can’t possibly touch God" and that "freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry have been expelled from publicly-funded high schools, universities and research institutions."<ref name="nyt"/>

Several critics were dismayed when the film showed the historical connection between the ideology of "[[survival of the fittest]]" and the [[Holocaust]], although the connections that the film makes can hardly be disputed. By the 1920s, German textbooks were teaching evolutionary concepts including heredity and racial hygiene. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics was founded in 1927; in 1933, Germany passed the Law for the Protection of Heredity Health. [[Josef Mengele]] studied anthropology and paleontology and received his Ph.D. for his thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups." In 1937, Mengele was recommended for and received a position as a research assistant with the Third Reich Institute for Hereditary, Biology and Racial Purity at the University of Frankfort, and subsequently became the "Angel of Death" for directing the operation of gas chambers of the [[Holocaust]] and for conducting horrific medical experiments on inmates in pursuit of [[eugenics]]. [[Evolutionist]] [[Stephen Jay Gould]] admitted: "The Nazi racial hygiene program began with involuntary sterilizations and ended with genocide."<ref>http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/scopenotes/sn28.htm</ref>

Before the film opened, pro-[[evolution]] opponents of the film engaged in the same kind of illegitimate tactics that the movie describes. In an attempt to demonize the film, many [[evolutionists]] call it "hysterical" even though there is no sign that any [[evolutionists]] were amused by it.<ref>Vadim Rizov of the Village Voice called ''Expelled'' "bizarre and hysterical." [http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2008/20080417155632.aspx]</ref> ''Time'' magazine, in its review, said Stein misrepresented evolution as saying that the first cell "arose whole" from the primordial soup, which is unlikely as the movie website correctly acknowledges the evolutionary view that it took millions or billions of years for the first cell to be produced by random, natural processes.

==Filmmaker statements==

{{quotebox|"If you acknowledge this idea that [[design]] can be detected scientifically in the universe, then you open up the door to saying, 'Maybe this [[atheist]]ic view isn't true,' [and] the entire worldview of people who are atheists crashes down around them," Mathis said. "This is a foundational concept for people who believe this way. So they defend it with incredible vigor."<ref>[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=27761 Intelligent Design foes no match for Stein in 'Expelled'] - Baptist Press </ref> }}

==[[Liberal]] Reception==

Predictably, complaints about the film from liberals have not addressed the film's premise. The [[liberal]] [[atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] claimed he was tricked into appearing, indicating that he had been told it would be a movie named ''Crossroads'' that would be focused on "exploring the controversy." (Two others who were similarly deceived said they would have appeared anyway.) In response, [[conservative]] Ben Stein said that no one he interviewed asked what the film would be about, and the co-producer Walt Ruloff said at the preview that interviewees were paid and were even told ahead of time what the questions would be.<ref>Bethell, Tom, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759 No Intelligence Allowed] ''The American Spectator'', 19th February, 2008.</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[Scientific American]]'' criticized the film, calling it "intellectually dishonest," and detailed their objections with the film and intelligent design in a series of inflammatory articles.<ref>http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sciam-reviews-expelled</ref>

The pro-[[evolution]] magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' ran a review which described the movie as follows: "''Expelled'' is pure propaganda, its style reminiscent of a substandard [[Michael Moore]] flick complete with voice-over narration and lots of aimless wandering around". The review criticizes the movie's treatment of [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] and claims that the movie "seems to be the next step in sneaking ID into schools after the Kitzmiller vs Dover case saw the compulsory teaching of ID ruled unconstitutional in 2005".<ref>Gefter, Amanda, Warning! They've Got Designs on You, 12 April 2008, New Scientist.</ref>

== Viewer Reception ==
''Expelled'' opened on April 18, 2008, on 1000 screens. It grossed $3.2 million US, or more than $3000 per screen.<ref name=wnd>"[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62152 'Expelled' propelled to box office top 10]." ''WorldNetDaily'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Movie Reviews==

In ''National Review'', [[David Klinghoffer]] describes the [[Darwin-Hitler connection]]:
* Expelled touches on [[Darwinism]]’s historical social costs, notably the unintended contribution to [[Nazi]] racial theories. That part packs an emotional wallop. It also happens to be based on impeccable scholarship. <ref name=dk>[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjg1NDg2ZDM5YTMwMGFiZGNhNTU5M2MwOTQ2NGE1Mjc=]</ref>
* "The key elements in the ideology that produced [[Auschwitz]] are [[moral relativism]] aligned with a rejection of the sacredness of [[human life]], a belief that violent competition in nature creates greater and lesser [[races]], that the greater will inevitably exterminate the lesser, and finally that the lesser race most in need of extermination is the [[Jews]]. All but the last of these ideas may be found in [[Darwin]]’s writing."

Tom Bethel wrote:
:The film, a documentary, is about scientists and researchers who acknowledge the scientific evidence for the intelligent design of life and who have been ostracized or denied tenure as a result. In a word, they have been "expelled" from the academy. <ref>http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12759</ref>

[[Carl Wieland]]:
{{QuoteBox|This powerful documentary is all about the persecution and censorship of any scientist who dares to oppose the Darwinist paradigm, by even suggesting the relatively modest hypothesis that the universe shows detectable evidence of design.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5638/ Cracking the wall in science] 20th February, 2008, (Creation Ministries International).</ref>}}

As described by the review in the ''[[New York Sun]]'', [[Richard Dawkins]] "becomes so flustered at one point that he even posits a creation theory of his own that fits the parameters of the film's working definition of intelligent design" in [[Expelled]], but claims the movie is "dull, artless, amateurish, too long, poorly constructed, and utterly devoid of any style, wit, or subtlety."<ref>http://www2.nysun.com/article/74583</ref>

Roger Friedman, a [[liberal]] who writes articles on the website for the [[conservative]] [[Fox News Channel]] (as part of their ongoing goal to remain balanced), criticized the movie in a celebrity gossip column by personally attacking Ben Stein, and claiming that the movie's "warped premise" that "somehow the theory of evolution is so evil that it caused the [[Holocaust]]" is actually [[anti-Semitic]]:
{{QuoteBox|"Expelled" is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) "expose" of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein... is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck..... Who cares, really, if "Expelled" is anti-Semitic? It will come and go without much fanfare.<ref>Friedman, Roger, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,348468,00.html#2 Ben Stein:Win his career], 9th April, 2008, Fox News</ref>}}

Jeffrey Kluger's review in the [[liberal]] [[Time Magazine|''Time'' Magazine]] asserts that [[Holocaust]] was the result of "the simple fact of being human":

{{QuoteBox|"The truth, of course, is that the only necessary and sufficient condition for human beings to murder one another [in the [[Holocaust]]] is the simple fact of being human."<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

In his quest to attack Ben Stein further, Kluger puts words in his mouth, and then commits the [[strawman fallacy]]:
{{QuoteBox|"[Stein] makes all the usual mistakes nonscientists make whenever they try to take down evolution, asking, for example, how something as complex as a living cell could have possibly arisen whole from the earth's primordial soup. The answer is it couldn't--and it didn't...<ref>Kluger, Jeffrey, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1729703,00.html Ben Stein Dukes it Out with Darwin], April 10th, 2008, Time</ref>}}

:The movie does not criticize Darwinists for saying the cell "arose whole" but for arguing "that life arose from a primordial sea on a lifeless planet through a chance collision of chemicals". This is the typical pro-evolution device of pretending that critics don't understand what evolution is saying. But it backfires, because the movie comes with a leader's guide which shows that Kluger is the one in error.

Justin Chang wrote the following for the [[liberal]] publication ''Variety'', which has a circulation smaller than ''Conservapedia'''s daily page views:
{{QuoteBox|"...the film's flippant approach undermines the seriousness of its discourse, trading less in facts than in emotional appeals....the filmmakers' failure to offer even a working definition of [Intelligent Design] leaves them open to the common charge that it's all unprovable, faith-based pseudo-science....Even more offensive is the film's attempt to link Darwin's "survival of the fittest" ideas and Hitler's master-race ambitions (when in doubt, invoke the Holocaust)..."Expelled" is technically well-mounted, though its [[aesthetics]] trump its ideas at every turn. If evolution is worth debating, it's worth debating well, and by a more intelligently designed film than this one."<ref>Chang, Justin, [http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117936783.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed], April 11th, 2008, Variety</ref>}}

Craig Ghamberlain, at ''My Wise Generation'', offers his "Six Things ''Expelled'' Critics Don't Want You to Know," in response to an earlier criticism<ref name=sciam>Rennie, John, and Mirsky, Steve. "[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&sc=rss Six Things in ''Expelled'' That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know]." ''Scientific American'', April 16, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref> that he found unfounded and unfair after he actually saw the film.<ref name=Chamberlain>Chamberlain, Craig. "[http://mywisegeneration.blogspot.com/2008/04/six-things-expelled-critics-dont-want.html Six Things 'Expelled' Critics Don't Want You to Know]." ''My Wise Generation'', April 21, 2008. Accessed April 21, 2008.</ref>

==Wider implications of the movie's main point==

[[Allen Roebuck]] argues:

* ... basic intellectual integrity demands that you take seriously the criticisms directed against [[Darwinism]]. In other words, you must take seriously any evidence supporting the notion that [[natural forces]] are incapable of either originating life or changing it from [[single-celled organisms]] to the species we observe now. And you cannot, as the Darwinian evolutionists do, dismiss the possibility of [[divine action]] as being outside the scope of science, and therefore de facto false. After all, if natural forces cannot do what obviously did happen, something supernatural must have been involved, and a proper science would acknowledge this possibility. [http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/04/18/evolution-101/]

== See also ==
*[[Origins debate]]
*[[Theory of evolution]]
*[[Creation-evolution controversy]]
*[[Design detection]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.discovery.org/a/4689 Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Movies]]
[[Category:Intelligent Design]]
[[Category:Evolution]]

User talk:Drewh

2008-04-21T17:55:05Z

Heffalump: New page: {{Welcome}}

User talk:Claypool

2008-04-21T17:46:01Z

Heffalump:

==Relation==
Are you in any way related to a Michael or John Claypool? o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 21:08, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Positive contribution? ==

Hello Claypool, It will be nice if we all could get along in this place. Please start some positive contributions instead of arguing. Thanks--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 13:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Gap theory

2008-04-19T16:09:36Z

Heffalump:

== "No longer lighting the Earth" ==
In the "support" section is the line that Genesis 1:2 "shows that the heavens were no longer lighting the earth and that consequently something must have changed the situation and darkened the heavens". Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Verse 1 says nothing about the Earth being lit, so how can verse 2 mentioning that the Earth was in darkness be indicating a change? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Because of the editing rules here I will have to post quite a lot of material before actually engaging in a debate. However, heaven (including the sun) and the earth were created first. If the EArth were dark, then something must have changed to make the earth dark. Or are you suggesting the the sun is not in the heavens?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Genesis records the sun being created on day 4 (and light being created ''after'' verse 1). So where do you get the idea that heaven includes the sun? The "unproductive activity" commandment refers to 90% talk and 10% editing. You are nowhere close to that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:48, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:::But the sun is in the Heaven - ie the sky. It is created in Day One. Isn't that obvious? (I must admit that I have a rather literal interpretation though - and I acknowledge that more liberal interpretations are poissible.) As an aside I would like to thank you for confirming my edit position. Are the statistics held somewhere so that I may reference them and Confirm my Position? I consider it most important that one should Follow the Rules.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The sun is in the heavens ''now'', but that doesn't mean that when the Bible says that the heavens were created that everything ''in'' the heavens were created at the same time, and Genesis specifically says that the sun was created on day 4. Isn't ''that'' obvious? And literal? As for your edit statistics, see the Personal edit counter link in the welcome box on your talk page. But keep in mind that the "90/10" rule is not a precise 90%/10% figure, but a commandment against "unproductive activity", with the 90/10 split being a guide to what that might be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:55, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::So that I understand your interpretation correctly: your position would be that when the heavens were created there was no sun? Just the earth floating in space? And when Scripture says "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It should be "In the beginning God created the heaven, but not the sun, and the earth."? Personally I think the literal (gap) interpretation make more sense from every angle. Why not just let the bible explain itself and accept it literally?
::::: On another issue, thank you for pointing me to the edit counter, and for explaining the edit rule - I thought it literally meant 90/10 I understand now that it's more symbolic.[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:15, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Yes, my position is that when the heavens were created, there was no sun, moon, or stars, as we are told that they were created on day 4. I do let the Bible explain itself and accept the creation account literally. It says that the heavens were created on day 1, and the sun, moon, and stars on day 4. It doesn't say that the heavens were created with the sun, moon, and stars on day 1.
:::::: I wouldn't call 90/10 "symbolic". Rather it's a ''guide'' to what "unproductive activity" is.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:51, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Thank you for taking the trouble to reply, but I remain confused by your position. If no sun, moon or stars were created when the heavens were created - then what was created when the heavens were created? [[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 11:57, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: The universe. The stars, etc. are ''in'' the universe. They are not the universe itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::But surely, the Universe is Defined by the matter within it. If there were no Matter in the Universe would it exist?[[User:Tolerance|Tolerance]] 12:07, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Tolerance, heavens mean the space , the vast empty space ...--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 12:09, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

Schizophrenia

2008-03-26T23:33:46Z

Heffalump:

'''Schizophrenia''' is a chronic, severe, and disabling [[brain]] disorder that has been recognized by the [[American Psychiatric Association]] and throughout recorded history. It affects about 1 percent of Americans.

People with schizophrenia may hear voices other people don't hear ([[auditory hallucination]])or they may believe that others are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. These experiences are terrifying and can cause fearfulness, withdrawal, or extreme agitation. People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk, may sit for hours without moving or talking much, or may seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking. Because many people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a job or caring for themselves, the burden on their families and society is significant as well.

Available treatments can relieve many of the disorder's symptoms, but most people who have schizophrenia must cope with some residual symptoms as long as they live. Nevertheless, this is a time of hope for people with schizophrenia and their families. Many people with the disorder now lead rewarding and meaningful lives in their communities. Researchers are developing more effective medications and using new research tools to understand the causes of schizophrenia and to find ways to prevent and treat it.

The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three broad categories:

* Positive symptoms are unusual thoughts or perceptions, including hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder, and disorders of movement.
* Negative symptoms represent a loss or a decrease in the ability to initiate plans, speak, express emotion, or find pleasure in everyday life. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for laziness or depression.
* Cognitive symptoms(or cognitive deficits) are problems with attention, certain types of memory, and the executive functions that allow us to plan and organize. Cognitive deficits can also be difficult to recognize as part of the disorder but are the most disabling in terms of leading a normal life.

== Positive symptoms ==

Positive symptoms are easy-to-spot behaviors not seen in healthy people and usually involve a loss of contact with reality. They include hallucinations, [[delusions]], thought disorder, and disorders of movement. Positive symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment.

Hallucinations: A hallucination is something a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel. "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices that may comment on their behavior, order them to do things, warn them of impending danger, or talk to each other (usually about the patient). They may hear these voices for a long time before family and friends notice that something is wrong. Other types of hallucinations include seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odors that no one else detects (although this can also be a symptom of certain brain tumors), and feeling things like invisible fingers touching their bodies when no one is near.

Delusions: Delusions are false personal beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change, even when other people present proof that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that are quite bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves, people on television are directing special messages to them, or radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. They may also have delusions of grandeur and think they are famous historical figures. People with paranoid schizophrenia can believe that others are deliberately cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying upon, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called delusions of persecution.

Thought Disorders: People with schizophrenia often have unusual thought processes. One dramatic form is disorganized thinking, in which the person has difficulty organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. Speech may be garbled or hard to understand. Another form is "thought blocking," in which the person stops abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, the individual might make up unintelligible words, or "[[neologisms]]."

Disorders of Movement: People with schizophrenia can be clumsy and uncoordinated. They may also exhibit involuntary movements and may grimace or exhibit unusual mannerisms. They may repeat certain motions over and over or, in extreme cases, may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state of immobility and unresponsiveness. It was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available; fortunately, it is now rare.

== Negative symptoms ==

The term "negative symptoms" refers to reductions in normal emotional and behavioral states. These include the following:

* Flat affect (immobile facial expression, monotonous voice)
* Lack of pleasure in everyday life
* Diminished ability to initiate and sustain planned activity
* Speaking infrequently, even when forced to interact

People with schizophrenia often neglect basic hygiene and need help with everyday activities. Because it is not as obvious that negative symptoms are part of a psychiatric illness, people with schizophrenia are often perceived as lazy and unwilling to better their lives.

== Cognitive symptoms ==

Cognitive symptoms are subtle and are often detected only when neuropsychological tests are performed. They include the following:

* Poor "executive functioning" (the ability to absorb and interpret information and make decisions based on that information),
* Inability to sustain attention
* Problems with "working memory" (the ability to keep recently learned information in mind and use it right away)

Cognitive impairments often interfere with the patient's ability to lead a normal life and earn a living. They can cause great emotional distress.

== External links ==

*[http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch202/ch202e.html Schizophrenia]

[[Category:Psychology]]

Schizophrenia

2008-03-26T23:31:35Z

Heffalump:

'''Schizophrenia''' is a chronic, severe, and disabling [[brain]] disorder that has been recognized by the [[American Psychiatric Association]] and throughout recorded history. It affects about 1 percent of Americans.

People with schizophrenia may hear voices other people don't hear ([[auditory hallucination]])or they may believe that others are reading their minds, controlling their thoughts, or plotting to harm them. These experiences are terrifying and can cause fearfulness, withdrawal, or extreme agitation. People with schizophrenia may not make sense when they talk, may sit for hours without moving or talking much, or may seem perfectly fine until they talk about what they are really thinking. Because many people with schizophrenia have difficulty holding a job or caring for themselves, the burden on their families and society is significant as well.

Available treatments can relieve many of the disorder's symptoms, but most people who have schizophrenia must cope with some residual symptoms as long as they live. Nevertheless, this is a time of hope for people with schizophrenia and their families. Many people with the disorder now lead rewarding and meaningful lives in their communities. Researchers are developing more effective medications and using new research tools to understand the causes of schizophrenia and to find ways to prevent and treat it.

The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three broad categories:

* Positive symptoms are unusual thoughts or perceptions, including hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder, and disorders of movement.
* Negative symptoms represent a loss or a decrease in the ability to initiate plans, speak, express emotion, or find pleasure in everyday life. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for laziness or depression.
* Cognitive symptoms(or cognitive deficits) are problems with attention, certain types of memory, and the executive functions that allow us to plan and organize. Cognitive deficits can also be difficult to recognize as part of the disorder but are the most disabling in terms of leading a normal life.

== Positive symptoms ==

Positive symptoms are easy-to-spot behaviors not seen in healthy people and usually involve a loss of contact with reality. They include hallucinations, delusions, thought disorder, and disorders of movement. Positive symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment.

Hallucinations: A hallucination is something a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel. "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices that may comment on their behavior, order them to do things, warn them of impending danger, or talk to each other (usually about the patient). They may hear these voices for a long time before family and friends notice that something is wrong. Other types of hallucinations include seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odors that no one else detects (although this can also be a symptom of certain brain tumors), and feeling things like invisible fingers touching their bodies when no one is near.

Delusions: Delusions are false personal beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change, even when other people present proof that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that are quite bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves, people on television are directing special messages to them, or radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. They may also have delusions of grandeur and think they are famous historical figures. People with paranoid schizophrenia can believe that others are deliberately cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying upon, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called delusions of persecution.

Thought Disorders: People with schizophrenia often have unusual thought processes. One dramatic form is disorganized thinking, in which the person has difficulty organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. Speech may be garbled or hard to understand. Another form is "thought blocking," in which the person stops abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, the individual might make up unintelligible words, or "neologisms."

Disorders of Movement: People with schizophrenia can be clumsy and uncoordinated. They may also exhibit involuntary movements and may grimace or exhibit unusual mannerisms. They may repeat certain motions over and over or, in extreme cases, may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state of immobility and unresponsiveness. It was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available; fortunately, it is now rare.

== Negative symptoms ==

The term "negative symptoms" refers to reductions in normal emotional and behavioral states. These include the following:

* Flat affect (immobile facial expression, monotonous voice)
* Lack of pleasure in everyday life
* Diminished ability to initiate and sustain planned activity
* Speaking infrequently, even when forced to interact

People with schizophrenia often neglect basic hygiene and need help with everyday activities. Because it is not as obvious that negative symptoms are part of a psychiatric illness, people with schizophrenia are often perceived as lazy and unwilling to better their lives.

== Cognitive symptoms ==

Cognitive symptoms are subtle and are often detected only when neuropsychological tests are performed. They include the following:

* Poor "executive functioning" (the ability to absorb and interpret information and make decisions based on that information),
* Inability to sustain attention
* Problems with "working memory" (the ability to keep recently learned information in mind and use it right away)

Cognitive impairments often interfere with the patient's ability to lead a normal life and earn a living. They can cause great emotional distress.

== External links ==

*[http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec15/ch202/ch202e.html Schizophrenia]

[[Category:Psychology]]

Gorilla

2008-03-26T23:16:56Z

Heffalump: Undo revision 414156 by Special:Contributions/Igor nz (User talk:Igor nz)

{{Taxonomy|image = Gorilla.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Primates|suborder = Hominoidea |family = Hominidae|subfamily = Homininae|tribe = Gorillini|genus = Gorilla|species = gorilla|alt = See article for full list of subspecies}}

The '''gorilla''', the largest of the living [[primate]]s, is a ground-dwelling [[omnivore]] that inhabits the forests of [[Africa]]. Gorillas are divided into two species and either four or five subspecies.<ref>A proposed third subspecies of ''Gorilla beringei'' (which has not yet received a Latin designation) is the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest population of the Mountain Gorilla, called the ''Bwindi Gorilla'' [http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=13142 International Fund for Animal Welfare] </ref> Comparison of [[DNA]] sequences of humans and gorillas show them to be 99% identical, but even with these similarities there are so many gaps in the sequence that it is difficult to explain how the two species could have descended from a common ancestor.

Attempts have been made to teach a gorilla named ''Koko'' a form of [[sign language]], although this is highly questionable.<ref>As part of her research into animal communication in 1972, a young graduate student in developmental psychology volunteered to teach sign language to a 1-year-old female Gorilla named Koko. [http://www.las.uiuc.edu/alumni/news/fall2003/03fall_Patterson.html] </ref>
Some scientists believe that Koko's ability to communicate through ASL is equivalent to a [[parrot]]'s ability to communicate through speech. Some scientists believe that Koko is only trained to make hand gestures but does not actually understand what she is doing. Young earth [[creationist]]s believe that gorillas were [[creation|created]] about 4000 years ago. According to [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary]] thought, humans shared a common ancestor with gorillas as recently as four to seven million years ago.<ref>Hobolth A, Christensen OF, Mailund T, Schierup MH (2007) Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model [http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030007 PLoS Genet 3(2)]</ref>

==Taxonomy==
*G. gorilla (Western gorilla)
**G. g. gorilla (Western Lowland gorilla)
**G. g. diehli (Cross River gorilla)
*G. beringei (Eastern gorilla)
**G. b. beringei (Mountain gorilla)
**G. b. graueri (Eastern Lowland gorilla)

==References==
<references/>

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

Huntsville, Alabama

2008-03-22T10:35:09Z

Heffalump:

'''Huntsville''' is a city in [[Alabama]]. It is the county seat of Madison County and has a population of around 165,000. It was originally settled by John Hunt and named by him [[Twickenham]] after the town in [[England]] where the poet [[Alexander Pope]], whom Hunt greatly admired, had his home. During the 1812-14 War 'Twickenham', Alabama, which had become the first incorporated municipality in the state, was renamed Huntsville after its founder. The city thrived from the cotton industry during the nineteenth century, but it was not until the mid twentieth century that the city became more well-known.

With the onset of World War II the city was chosen as the location of Redstone Arsenal, a military base. After the war, captured Nazi scientist [[Wernher von Braun]] was brought to the base to work at the Marshall Space Flight Center and develop what would become [[NASA]]. Due to its history of involvement with the US space program, the city has been nicknamed "Rocket City", for which it has been famous ever since.

[[category:World War II]]
[[category:United States geography]]
[[Category:United States Towns and Cities]]

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

2008-03-22T10:32:34Z

Heffalump: /* Opportunistic Infections (OIs) */ wikifying major pathogens

'''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome''' (usually referred to as '''AIDS''') is a collection of diseases and symptoms caused by long-term infection with the[[HIV| Human Immunodeficiency Virus]].

== Definition ==

According to the CDC's 1993 guidelines, <ref>http://www.cdc.gov</ref><ref>http://www.merckmedicus.com/ppdocs/us/hcp/content/merck/hiv/hivaids/aidsdefi.htmAIDS is defined </ref>as follows:
HIV infection ''plus'' any of the following:
*[[CD4]] count less than 200 or
*CD4 percentage less than 14% of total lymphocytes or
*Any of the following illnesses: pulmonary TB, recurrent pneumonia, invasive cervical cancer.
*Expanded definition including 23 clinical conditions published elsewhere<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm</ref>

The World Health Organization uses a different staging method for HIV disease. <ref>http://www.aids-ed.org/aetc/aetc?page=cm-105_disease</ref>

== History ==

The illness was first recognized in the early 1980s<ref>New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 344:1764-1772 June 7, 2001 Number 23</ref> as homosexual men presented to their doctors with a rare lung disease called ''Pneumocystis carinii'' pneumonia (PCP)<ref>Pneumocystis pneumonia -- Los Angeles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981;30:250-252)</ref>. Early on, the "[[gay disease]]" took on a variety of names, including "gay cancer" and "Gay-related immune deficiency" (GRID). The [[Centers for Disease Control]] noticed an increase in requests for drugs needed to treat this illness and launched an epidemiological investigation.

Although the first cases of the disease probably go back to the 1950s, the epidemic was not recognized until the early 1980s [http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm]. The early epidemic occurred in two main branches; in the US and other developed countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa. In the US, the early epidemic was primarily spread by homosexual sex, intravenous drug use, and blood transfusions. In Africa, transmission was almost exclusively by heterosexual sex. Currently, most new infections worldwide are spread by heterosexual sex.

== Natural History ==

After infection with [[HIV]], the virus quickly replicates in lymphatic tissue and travels through the blood to infect most areas of the body. The largest consequence of this is the "hijacking" of certain immune cells, especially so-called T-Helper, or CD-4, cells. Early in the infection, the immune system holds the infection at bay, often causing "Acute Retroviral Syndrome", a flu-like illness. Patients often have swollen lymph nodes. After approximately 8-10 years of infection, the immune system begins to lose its battle. This is primarily seen in the loss of numbers of CD4 cells, however the changes are somewhat more complex. When the CD4 cell level drops low enough, AIDS becomes apparent.
The first symptoms of the illness are generally night sweats, weight loss, and oral thrush.

== Opportunistic Infections (OIs) ==

The hallmark of AIDS is the appearance of ''opportunistic infections'', meaning infections with organisms that do not usually cause human disease, unless given the right "opportunity". This opportunity is the reduction in cell-mediated immunity, first seen in patients with certain cancers or on anti-rejection drugs for organ transplantation.
These infections include:

*Pneumocystis jiroveci, previously [[Pneumocystis carinii]]
*[[Candida albicans]] (the cause of thrush and vaginal yeast infections)
*Staphylococcus aureus (primarily causes skin infections)
*[[Toxoplasma gondii]]
*[[Cytomegalovirus]]
*Streptococcus pneumoniae (the primary cause of pneumonia in AIDS patients)
*[[Mycobacterium tuberculosis]] (TB)
*Mycobacterium avium complex (atypical mycobacterium)
*Cryptococcus neoformans (a cause of meningitis)
*Epstein Barr virus (leads to a type of lymphoma)
*Human herpesvirus-8 (causes Kaposi's sarcoma)

== Dissent ==
Among the world's medical professionals and biologists, there is complete agreement that HIV causes AIDS. In this, Koch's postulates have been clearly fulfilled, and basic science research has shown the same. Specific drugs have been developed that treat HIV infection and AIDS, helping show the causal relationship. That being said, there is a vocal minority of people, including some scientists, who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Foremost among these is Dr. Peter Duesberg. Details about these "re-thinkers" and their arguments can be found at several websites, but not in any reliable peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight/2007/12/01/some-questions-media-wont-ask-today-about-aids Some Questions the Media Won't Ask Today About AIDS], Robert Knight, [[NewsBusters]], December 1, 2007

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome

2008-03-22T10:31:15Z

Heffalump: /* Definition */

'''Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome''' (usually referred to as '''AIDS''') is a collection of diseases and symptoms caused by long-term infection with the[[HIV| Human Immunodeficiency Virus]].

== Definition ==

According to the CDC's 1993 guidelines, <ref>http://www.cdc.gov</ref><ref>http://www.merckmedicus.com/ppdocs/us/hcp/content/merck/hiv/hivaids/aidsdefi.htmAIDS is defined </ref>as follows:
HIV infection ''plus'' any of the following:
*[[CD4]] count less than 200 or
*CD4 percentage less than 14% of total lymphocytes or
*Any of the following illnesses: pulmonary TB, recurrent pneumonia, invasive cervical cancer.
*Expanded definition including 23 clinical conditions published elsewhere<ref>http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00018871.htm</ref>

The World Health Organization uses a different staging method for HIV disease. <ref>http://www.aids-ed.org/aetc/aetc?page=cm-105_disease</ref>

== History ==

The illness was first recognized in the early 1980s<ref>New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 344:1764-1772 June 7, 2001 Number 23</ref> as homosexual men presented to their doctors with a rare lung disease called ''Pneumocystis carinii'' pneumonia (PCP)<ref>Pneumocystis pneumonia -- Los Angeles. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 1981;30:250-252)</ref>. Early on, the "[[gay disease]]" took on a variety of names, including "gay cancer" and "Gay-related immune deficiency" (GRID). The [[Centers for Disease Control]] noticed an increase in requests for drugs needed to treat this illness and launched an epidemiological investigation.

Although the first cases of the disease probably go back to the 1950s, the epidemic was not recognized until the early 1980s [http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm]. The early epidemic occurred in two main branches; in the US and other developed countries, and in sub-Saharan Africa. In the US, the early epidemic was primarily spread by homosexual sex, intravenous drug use, and blood transfusions. In Africa, transmission was almost exclusively by heterosexual sex. Currently, most new infections worldwide are spread by heterosexual sex.

== Natural History ==

After infection with [[HIV]], the virus quickly replicates in lymphatic tissue and travels through the blood to infect most areas of the body. The largest consequence of this is the "hijacking" of certain immune cells, especially so-called T-Helper, or CD-4, cells. Early in the infection, the immune system holds the infection at bay, often causing "Acute Retroviral Syndrome", a flu-like illness. Patients often have swollen lymph nodes. After approximately 8-10 years of infection, the immune system begins to lose its battle. This is primarily seen in the loss of numbers of CD4 cells, however the changes are somewhat more complex. When the CD4 cell level drops low enough, AIDS becomes apparent.
The first symptoms of the illness are generally night sweats, weight loss, and oral thrush.

== Opportunistic Infections (OIs) ==

The hallmark of AIDS is the appearance of ''opportunistic infections'', meaning infections with organisms that do not usually cause human disease, unless given the right "opportunity". This opportunity is the reduction in cell-mediated immunity, first seen in patients with certain cancers or on anti-rejection drugs for organ transplantation.
These infections include:

*Pneumocystis jiroveci, previously Pneumocystis carinii
*[[Candida albicans]] (the cause of thrush and vaginal yeast infections)
*Staphylococcus aureus (primarily causes skin infections)
*Toxoplasma gondii
*Cytomegalovirus
*Streptococcus pneumoniae (the primary cause of pneumonia in AIDS patients)
*Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB)
*Mycobacterium avium complex (atypical mycobacterium)
*Cryptococcus neoformans (a cause of meningitis)
*Epstein Barr virus (leads to a type of lymphoma)
*Human herpesvirus-8 (causes Kaposi's sarcoma)

== Dissent ==
Among the world's medical professionals and biologists, there is complete agreement that HIV causes AIDS. In this, Koch's postulates have been clearly fulfilled, and basic science research has shown the same. Specific drugs have been developed that treat HIV infection and AIDS, helping show the causal relationship. That being said, there is a vocal minority of people, including some scientists, who do not believe that HIV causes AIDS. Foremost among these is Dr. Peter Duesberg. Details about these "re-thinkers" and their arguments can be found at several websites, but not in any reliable peer-reviewed journals:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Main_Page

==Notes==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/robert-knight/2007/12/01/some-questions-media-wont-ask-today-about-aids Some Questions the Media Won't Ask Today About AIDS], Robert Knight, [[NewsBusters]], December 1, 2007

[[Category:Diseases]]
[[Category:Medicine]]

User:Heffalump

2008-03-22T10:26:15Z

Heffalump:

{{userboxtop|Heffalump}}
{{user Christian}}
{{user straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User CPLeader|[[Aschlafly]]}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-03-17T18:14:27Z

Heffalump:

NO.

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

YES.

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict evolution. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Skeptics Annotated Bible

2008-03-16T23:29:30Z

Heffalump: New page: == refutation == Thank you Fox, but the refutation appears to need rewording to suit an encyclopedic style.--~~~~

== refutation ==

Thank you Fox, but the refutation appears to need rewording to suit an encyclopedic style.--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 19:29, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Pavee

2008-03-16T23:26:53Z

Heffalump:

A pavee is a colloquial term for member of the travelling community in Ireland. They are famous for worshipping fairies along with the catholic saints.{{fact}} They have a rich and varied musical culture though they are often seen drunk.

Talk:Chisel

2008-03-16T23:19:35Z

Heffalump:

=="formidable combination and a worthy tool."==
Isn't that just pure subjective (& bad) poetry [[User:AlephNull|AlephNull]] 19:14, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

The article is not locked. why don't you change it for better? that is what wikis are for. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 19:19, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

Chisel

2008-03-16T23:18:49Z

Heffalump:

A '''chisel''' is used to cut material, partnered with a [[hammer]] it becomes quite a useful combination and a worthy tool. A chisel usually consists of a sharpened metal rod embedded within a wood or rubber handle with a wide base.

The sharp metal end is placed where the cutting is desired, and a hammer striking the blunt handle end drives the chisel into the material (often wood) where cutting is desired.

The tool itself is one of the earliest core [[woodworking]] / [[carpentry]] tools. But modern chisels have shown a variety of uses.

[[Category:Tools]]

Liberal myths

2008-03-16T23:11:08Z

Heffalump:

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system. They include:

*The claim of a [[population explosion]] (motivation: promote [[abortion]]){{fact}}
*The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous [[Christians]] look dumb){{fact}}
*The claim that the [[Apostles]] were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb){{fact}}
*The claim of [[extraterrestrial life]] (motivation: deny that man was created in [[God]]'s image){{fact}}
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]].[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths]
*The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.{{fact}}
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.

Please add to this list.

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]

Conservapedia:Articles for deletion

2008-03-16T23:06:40Z

Heffalump: /* Kept */

*If you think an article should be deleted because it violates The Conservapedia Commandments, or for any other reason post it here and sign it, along with a link in the format "AFD pagename", and give your reason there. Please contribute to the discussions in the AFD pages. Do not argue for or against deletion on this page.
*Use [[Conservapedia:Copying]] to track articles that have no problem with topic or content, but which seem to draw too heavily on material copied from elsewhere.

Archives:
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/archive 1|01]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for deletion/archive 2|02]]

----



= Current discussions =

= Kept =

*{{afd kept|26 May|Bam Margera}}
*{{afd keep|21 May|"Same-sex marriage"}}
*{{afd kept|18 May 2007 |Uncyclopedia}} and locked
*{{afd kept|10 May 2007 |Agreement}}
*{{afd kept|10 May|Congressional Quarterly article}}
*{{afd kept|10 May|Cornpone}}
*{{afd kept|23 May |Lesbians }} Repaired, marked as stub & proposed for merger
*{{afd kept|21 April 2007|Wars France lost}} redirected to [[French Wars]]
*{{afd kept|11 April 2007 |Hamlet|namespace=Conservapedia:}}

*{{afd|Buche de Noel}}
*{{afd|Borat}}
*{{afd|South Park}}
*{{afd|Agreement}}
*{{afd|Skeptics Annotated Bible}}

=Kept with provisions =

*{{afd keep|19 Feb|Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious}} - Merged with [[Mary Poppins]]

=Deleted=
The following pages have had an AFD discussion and the resulting decision was to delete the article.

*Deleted: 14 May 2007 - Kwai nyu rugby
*{{afd deleted|11 May|Premarital sex}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007 |Lance Bass}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Questions or Comments}}
*{{afd deleted|10 May 2007|Kevin Federline}}
*{{afd deleted|02 May 2007 |Chanty wrassling}}

*{{afd deleted|30 April 2007|Trumpton Riots}}
*{{afd deleted|29 April 2007|Walford}}
*{{afd deleted|21 April|Jings}}

*{{afd|Corky Romano}}

*{{afd|Producerism}}
*{{afd|Sadly no}}
*{{afd|Sathieism}}
*{{afd|Pocket billiards}}
*{{afd|Is it easier to ask for permission, or for forgiveness?}}
*{{afd|Jack Of All Trades}}
*{{afd|Jack of all trades}}
*{{afd|Fulchester}}
*{{afd|Image:X mark.jpg}}
*{{afd|Inbreeding}}
*{{afd|DuckTales}}
*{{afd|Cheesy potatoes}}
*{{afd|Bertie Higgins}}
*{{afd|Andrew Ridgeley}}
*{{afd|Cookie Monster}}
*{{afd|Xbox 360}}
*{{afd|Church of the SubGenius}}

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-03-16T22:45:26Z

Heffalump:

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-03-16T22:31:53Z

Heffalump:

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-03-11T13:09:34Z

Heffalump:

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2008-03-11T13:09:14Z

Heffalump: New page: NO. It is very simple - dJesus was born to rescue us from the original sin. If there is no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will...

NO.
It is very simple - dJesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally.

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-03-11T13:03:28Z

Heffalump: /* Religious debates */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Herbivore

2008-03-11T13:00:00Z

Heffalump:

A [[consumers|consumer]] that eats [[producers]] exclusively.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.
2000</ref> This translates into an animal that eats primarily plants and vegetation.

Biblical creation account states that God created animals were originally as herbivores. It is believed that carnivorous behavior began after God cursed the world due to the [[original sin]].

Sheep, deer<ref>http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=870952003</ref> and cows<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070308/od_afp/indiaanimaloffbeat_070308082927</ref> are now known to actively seek out and eat small animals.
Zoologists are now considering that there may be a case for having them reclassified as omnivores.

==See also==
*[[Carnivore]]
*[[Omnivore]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Biology]]

Thymus

2008-03-10T21:12:45Z

Heffalump:

The '''Thymus''' is a ductless two-lobed [[gland]] lying behind the breast bone and composed mainly of [[lymphoid]] [[cells]]. It plays a part in setting up the body's [[immunity system]]. After [[puberty]], it declines in size.

Autoimmune difficulties are thought to be caused by an improperly functioning thymus. A type of cancer called [[Lymphoma]] can arise from the thymus gland

== Sources ==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category: Anatomy]]

User:Heffalump

2008-03-10T21:09:40Z

Heffalump:

{{userboxtop|Heffalump}}
{{user Christian}}
{{user straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Embraced deceit

2008-03-10T20:48:28Z

Heffalump:

'''Embraced deceit''' is [[deceit]] that is knowingly allowed, defended or even promoted for ideological purposes. Not only did the perpetrators of the [[deceit]] promote it, but their allies were complicit also.

'''Embraced deceit''' is common.
== References ==

<references/>

[[category:politics]]

Sun

2008-03-10T20:44:28Z

Heffalump: /* Mythological */

{{Planet
|image=Moooghj.jpg
|caption=Sun, the small blue dot on the upper-right corner is Earth.
|primary=Galaxy
|periapsis=27,600 ly<ref name=Trapp>Trapp, Andrew. "[http://www.geocities.com/dreamer-71/timescales.html Timescales in Open, Flat, and Very Large Closed Universes]." ''From Now Until the End of Time...'' Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=31,800 ly<ref name=apo>Author unknown. "[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=apogalacticon Entry for 'Apogalacticon']." <http://everything2.com/> July 22, 2001. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|semimajor=29,700 ly<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|eccentricity=0.07<ref name=apo/>
|sidereal=250,000,000 a
|orbitspeed=217 km/s
|inclination=25°
|reference=galactic plane
|siderealday = 25 da<ref name=Goddard>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html Sun Fact Sheet]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center ([[NASA]])'', September 1, 2004. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|solarday=27.2753 da<ref name=SunFact>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=Facts&System=Metric Sun Facts and Figures]." ''[[NASA]]'', April 26, 2007. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref><ref name=note1>This day is actually a synodic day and is the period for the same point on the Sun's equator to appear again directly facing the [[Earth]].</ref>
|mass=1.9891 * 1030 kg (332,848.616 * earth)<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|density=1408 kg/m³<ref name=Goddard/>
|surfacegrav=274.0 m/s² (27.94 ''g'')<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|escapespeed=618.02 km/s<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|meanradius=696,000 km<ref name=Goddard/>
|equatorradius=695,500 km<ref name=SunFact/>
|surfacearea=6,087,799,000,000 km² (11,935.176 * earth)<ref name=SunFact/>
|mintemp=4000 K<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=Britannica>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110144/Sun Entry for 'Sun']." ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=5777 K<ref name=SunFact/>
|maxtemp=8000 K<ref name=Britannica/>
|composition=92.1% [[hydrogen]], 7.8% [[helium]]<ref name=SunFact/>
|color=Yellow-orange
}}The '''sun''' or [[Sol]] (either from the Greek, ''helios'' or from the [[Latin]] word ''sol'') is a [[yellow dwarf]] [[star]] of [[spectral type]] [[G2V]]. The eight [[planet]]s, including Earth, orbit the sun, as do countless other small objects.<ref name=Britannica/>

== Nomenclature ==
The G2 class is the the second level of hottest stars within the yellow G class. A "V" star in this class is a yellow dwarf star--but the Sun is in fact in the 95th percentile in its class by size and mass of other stars in its immediate region.<ref name=Britannica/>

== History ==
=== Biblical ===
The [[Bible]] says:{{Bible quote|God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=16}}

This took place during the fourth [[Days of creation|day]] of Creation Week. More to the point, the Sun is a part of God's creation, not a "god" in its own right.

=== Mythological ===
In contrast, virtually every other civilization has regarded the Sun as one of many gods. The Egyptians called the Sun '''Ra''' or '''Re''', a deity whom, they said, created the world.<ref name=touregypt>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm Re (Ra) and Re-Horakhty]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The Egyptians also called the sun-disk '''Aten''', and for a brief period (during the reign of [[Pharaoh]] [[Amenhotep IV]] or '''Akhenaten'''), actually worshipped Aten as the one and only god of the universe.<ref name=touregypt2>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aten.htm The Egyptian God Aten Before and After Akhenaten]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> In [[Babylonia]] and [[Assyria]] the sun was called '''Shamash''', a god who, because he could see everything happening on earth, was also associated with truth and justice.<ref name=MacKenzie>MacKenzie, Donald A. "[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba17.htm Chapter XI: The Golden Age of Babylonia]." ''Myths of Babylonia and Assyria'', IndyPublish.com (ISBN 1421962977), December 30, 2005, pp. 240-259. Accessed March 5, 2008, at <http://www.sacred-texts.com/></ref> The Greeks at first regarded ''Helios'' as a son of heaven and earth but later came to associate the Sun with their god of truth, '''Apollo'''. According to the [[Apache Creation Story]], [[Creator]], the One Who Lives Above, created the sun by singing it into existence after he had created the Girl-Without-Parents.<ref>Welker, Glenn. "[http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm Apache Creation Story]" <Indians.org>, August 12, 2004. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> According to Hindu mythology, sun is worshiped as '''Surya''' ,one of the major deities.

The most common theme in all the sun-worship cults is the association of the sun with truth and justice personified. The second most common theme is the regarding of the sun as the creator.

=== Materialistic ===
According to the [[materialism|materialist]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] view, what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating [[cloud]] of [[dust]] and [[gas]], composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the [[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]] as well as small amounts of heavier [[element]]s. Around 4.57 billion years ago, the cloud began to contract, perhaps as a result of a [[shock wave]] from a nearby [[supernova]]. [[Inertia]] caused the rotating cloud to flatten into a disk. Most of the mass concentrated in the middle, and began to heat up. Eventually, the kinetic energy of the hydrogen was sufficient to overcome the [[electromagnetic]] repulsion between the protons, and fusion began. The resulting solar wind helped clear away much of the material which had not coalesced into planets or other orbiting bodies.<ref>"[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_1.html Cosmic Evolution, Epoch 4: Planetary Evolution]." ''[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind]'', Wright Center, [[Tufts University]]. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> The sun is most likely a third-generation star.

== Orbital characteristics and galactic relationships ==
The Sun orbits the galactic center at a distance less than half the total estimated radius of the [[galaxy]], and in an orbit inclined about 25° from the galactic plane. The eccentricity of the Sun's orbit is 0.07, about average in comparison to the eccentricities of the [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s of the [[solar system]]. At present the Sun lies 50 light years north of the galactic plane and is continuing to climb north of it as it approaches [[apsis|perigalacticon]].<ref name=LeDrew>LeDrew, Glenn. "[http://ottawa.rasc.ca/astronotes/1997/an9701p3.html Our Galactic Home]." ''AstroNotes'', 1997. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>

==Properties and Characteristics==
The sun accounts for 99.8% of our solar system's total mass. With a mass of 2 x 1030 kg, an atmospheric temperature of about 5800 K, and a luminosity of 4x1020 megawatts, the sun is by far the most extraordinary object during the day-time sky and of our solar system.
However within our Milky Way [[galaxy]] it is one of probably 100 billion of the same types of stars.

By mass, it is composed of 72% [[hydrogen]], 26% [[helium]] and 2% trace elements of [[oxygen]], [[carbon]], [[neon]], [[nitrogen]], [[magnesium]], [[iron]], and [[silicon]].<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html World Book Encyclopedia @ NASA]</ref>

Core temperatures reach 15,000,000 K (K = Kelvin) while the sun's surface or ''photosphere'' temperature is 5,800 K. When the photosphere is hit by the heat of the sun the temperature drops to a minimum of 4,000 K. It then continues further until it encounters a thin layer of [[atmosphere]] roughly 10,000 kilometers deep called the ''chromosphere'' and reverses trend to rise to 8,000 K. Even further is another part of the sun's total atmosphere called the ''corona'' that blends in with interplanetary space.

=== Relationship to Earth ===
The sun produces a vast amount of [[energy]], only a tiny fraction of which the Earth receives, yet this small amount powers practically all [[life]] (and [[industry]]) on Earth, either directly or indirectly. It is also the main force controlling Earth's [[climate]] and [[weather]]. [[Plant]]s and other organisms capture the energy of the sun in a process called [[photosynthesis]]. Animals and other [[heterotroph]]s obtain food and energy from consuming plants or from consuming [[animal]]s which have consumed the plants. Only a few microscopic organisms obtain energy directly from chemical reactions.

The tremendous light and heat that the sun releases, and the delicate position that the [[Earth]] occupies in relation to the sun, combine to make the sun an integral part of sustaining life.

[[Human]] civilization, too, is dependent on the sun. Much of humanity's [[industry|industrial]] energy needs are obtained through the combustion of [[fossil fuel]]s, the remains of dead plants and animals. Uneven heating of the atmosphere provides [[wind power]]. Also, the sun evaporates water from lower-lying bodies of water; this then falls as rain and flows back down channels, providing hydroelectric power. On a limited basis, [[solar power]] is directly utilized. [[Geothermal energy]] and [[nuclear energy]] are examples of energy sources to which the sun does not directly contribute.

=== Energy production and transport ===
The sun produces its energy through nuclear fusion.<ref name=sunspot1>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research2.html Sunspots: Modern Research, Page 2]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The favored model for energy production relies on tremendous pressures resulting from the sun's own mass to overcome the natural electrostatic repulsive forces that normally keep hydrogen atoms from coming together and fusing.<ref name=Britannica/>

The model for hydrogen fusion includes these three equations:

<math>{}^0_{-1}\!e + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^0_0\!\nu + \mbox{1.44 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + \gamma + \mbox{5.49 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + \mbox{12.85 MeV}</math>

Here, <math>e</math> represents an electron, H means [[hydrogen]], He means [[helium]], <math>\gamma</math> represents a gamma photon, <math>\nu</math> represents a small, uncharged particle called a [[neutrino]] that is not supposed to have any proper mass, and the energy unit eV, or ''electron volt'', is the product of the charge on a single electron and the standard unit of electromotive force or electromotive potential.

The energy produced varies as the fourth power of the temperature--and at the temperatures thought to prevail in the sun's core, matter exists, not as ordinary matter with atomic nuclei and electrons, but as [[plasma]]--a form of super-hot matter in which atoms are totally denuded of their electrons.

The first equation above is assumed to be the rate-limiting step. The neutrinos produced should have an energy of 0.26 MeV--too little energy to be detectable by current technology. But processes occurring after this step ought to produce higher-energy neutrinos that ''would'' be detectable. Such neutrinos have been detected, but at a flux much smaller than predicted. This indicates that the presumed rates for these subsequent processes are higher than the true rates, or else the neutrinos produced somehow transform to a different type of neutrino that would be unobservable. That in turn would imply that neutrinos ''do'' have rest mass.<ref name=Britannica/>

According to current models, some of this energy is transferred to the surface by convection in the outer 20-30% of the body of the sun.<ref name=sunspot1/> [[Helium]] in this ''convective zone'' rises to or near the surface, releases its heat, and then sinks back to the center. Helium absorbs radiation more readily than does hydrogen, and for that reason the sun is always getting marginally brighter with the passage of time.<ref name=Britannica/>

The remaining energy is transferred in the gamma photons, which must take a "random walk" to reach the corona of the Sun. Current models suggest that the light generated by these processes takes 50 million years to reach the surface.<ref name=sunspot1/>

=== Sunspots ===
The earliest observations of sunspots might have been made in the fourth century BC by the Greeks. Chinese astronomical records dating back to 28 BC include descriptions of changing dark patches on the sun that might have been sunspots.<ref name=sunspot2>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/history.html Sunspots: History]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

[[Galileo Galilei]] in 1613 was the first astronomer to study sunspots in any detail. It was a revolutionary observation, and one that clashed greatly with Western man's ideas of the heavens, propounded chiefly by Aristotle, as a perfect, unblemished place.<ref name=sunspot2/><ref name=heavens>[[Paul]] describes a region called the "third heaven" as the actual "heaven" where [[God]] has His throne. See {{Bible ref|book=II_Corinthians|chap=12|verses=2}}. But the Bible was not yet readily available to laymen in Galileo's day, and Western man might naturally confuse God's heaven with the lesser "heaven" that we call "outer space" today.</ref>

An amateur astronomer, Heinrich Schwabe, was the first to note the ''sunspot cycle'' in 1843.<ref name=sunspotcycle>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research4.html The Sunspot Cycle]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The sunspots are dark on account of their cooler temperature. This in turn is due to strong magenetic fields which allow the transport of heat via convective motion in the sun. At times these sunspots can be 50,000 miles in diameter and appear in two bands, one being north and the other south in the direction of the sun's equator.

Observations have also shown that the number and location of sunspots come and go in a semi-periodic 9.5 to 11-year solar cycles. At the start of this cycle they are about 30 degrees from the equator. Midway through, the cycle of the number of sunspots observed is maximum, usually about 15 degrees from the equator. Near the end of this on average 10.8-year cycle, the sunspots are very near the equator.<ref name=curious>"[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php The Sun]." ''Curious about Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer'', Cornell University, October 18, 2007. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref><ref name=Maunder>"[http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderf/ Factors Affecting Global Temperature]." ''Ponder the Maunder''. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

== Problems for uniformitarian theories posed by the Sun ==
[[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarians]] must admit that the sun continues to brighten as it continues to fuse hydrogen into helium. In fact, by uniformitarian estimates, the sun ought to be 40% brighter today than it was when the planets formed and 33% brighter than it was when life first formed (3.8 billion years ago by evolutionary assumptions). The Earth thus ought to be much hotter today than it once was--or rather, the Earth was much colder in the early days in which life has existed than it is today. The fossil record demonstrably does not bear this out.<ref name=Britannica/><ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike. ''Our Created Universe''. Seattle Creation Conference, 2007. Video presentation, 55 minutes.</ref> Uniformitarians answer that the Earth's atmosphere might be compensating for this increased brightness. (But these are often the same scientists who insist that industrial and transport-related introduction of [[carbon dioxide]] into Earth's atmosphere threatens to overheat the Earth, with potentially disastrous results.)

Uniformitarians have also had to admit that the sun rotates about 200 times more slowly than the [[nebula hypothesis]] would predict, simply on account of the contraction of the solar mass into its present volume. This violates of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This "angular momentum" problem has been apparent for hundreds of years and remains unresolved to this day.<ref name=Psarris/>

The sun's equatorial plane is inclined 7.25° to the ecliptic. (See [[Earth]].) By the nebula hypothesis, that inclination should be zero. The errant inclination poses an especially acute problem for the orbit of [[Neptune]]. Uniformitarians have speculated that a collision with an even larger object knocked the sun off a true perpendicular to its present inclination--but no scientist has offered a convincing speculation as to what that object might be.<ref name=Psarris/>

Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>

Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the Sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. Astronomer John Eddy has frankly admitted that the Sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the Sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}

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

{{Solarsystem}}

Sun

2008-03-10T20:43:44Z

Heffalump: /* Mythological */

{{Planet
|image=Moooghj.jpg
|caption=Sun, the small blue dot on the upper-right corner is Earth.
|primary=Galaxy
|periapsis=27,600 ly<ref name=Trapp>Trapp, Andrew. "[http://www.geocities.com/dreamer-71/timescales.html Timescales in Open, Flat, and Very Large Closed Universes]." ''From Now Until the End of Time...'' Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|apoapsis=31,800 ly<ref name=apo>Author unknown. "[http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=apogalacticon Entry for 'Apogalacticon']." <http://everything2.com/> July 22, 2001. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|semimajor=29,700 ly<ref name=calc>Calculated</ref>
|eccentricity=0.07<ref name=apo/>
|sidereal=250,000,000 a
|orbitspeed=217 km/s
|inclination=25°
|reference=galactic plane
|siderealday = 25 da<ref name=Goddard>Williams, David R. "[http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/sunfact.html Sun Fact Sheet]." ''Goddard Space Flight Center ([[NASA]])'', September 1, 2004. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>
|solarday=27.2753 da<ref name=SunFact>Harvey, Samantha. "[http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Sun&Display=Facts&System=Metric Sun Facts and Figures]." ''[[NASA]]'', April 26, 2007. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref><ref name=note1>This day is actually a synodic day and is the period for the same point on the Sun's equator to appear again directly facing the [[Earth]].</ref>
|mass=1.9891 * 1030 kg (332,848.616 * earth)<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|density=1408 kg/m³<ref name=Goddard/>
|surfacegrav=274.0 m/s² (27.94 ''g'')<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|escapespeed=618.02 km/s<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=SunFact/>
|meanradius=696,000 km<ref name=Goddard/>
|equatorradius=695,500 km<ref name=SunFact/>
|surfacearea=6,087,799,000,000 km² (11,935.176 * earth)<ref name=SunFact/>
|mintemp=4000 K<ref name=Goddard/><ref name=Britannica>"[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9110144/Sun Entry for 'Sun']." ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>
|meantemp=5777 K<ref name=SunFact/>
|maxtemp=8000 K<ref name=Britannica/>
|composition=92.1% [[hydrogen]], 7.8% [[helium]]<ref name=SunFact/>
|color=Yellow-orange
}}The '''sun''' or [[Sol]] (either from the Greek, ''helios'' or from the [[Latin]] word ''sol'') is a [[yellow dwarf]] [[star]] of [[spectral type]] [[G2V]]. The eight [[planet]]s, including Earth, orbit the sun, as do countless other small objects.<ref name=Britannica/>

== Nomenclature ==
The G2 class is the the second level of hottest stars within the yellow G class. A "V" star in this class is a yellow dwarf star--but the Sun is in fact in the 95th percentile in its class by size and mass of other stars in its immediate region.<ref name=Britannica/>

== History ==
=== Biblical ===
The [[Bible]] says:{{Bible quote|God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=16}}

This took place during the fourth [[Days of creation|day]] of Creation Week. More to the point, the Sun is a part of God's creation, not a "god" in its own right.

=== Mythological ===
In contrast, virtually every other civilization has regarded the Sun as one of many gods. The Egyptians called the Sun '''Ra''' or '''Re''', a deity whom, they said, created the world.<ref name=touregypt>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/re.htm Re (Ra) and Re-Horakhty]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The Egyptians also called the sun-disk '''Aten''', and for a brief period (during the reign of [[Pharaoh]] [[Amenhotep IV]] or '''Akhenaten'''), actually worshipped Aten as the one and only god of the universe.<ref name=touregypt2>Dunn, Jimmy. "[http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/aten.htm The Egyptian God Aten Before and After Akhenaten]." <http://www.touregypt.net/>. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> In [[Babylonia]] and [[Assyria]] the sun was called '''Shamash''', a god who, because he could see everything happening on earth, was also associated with truth and justice.<ref name=MacKenzie>MacKenzie, Donald A. "[http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/mba/mba17.htm Chapter XI: The Golden Age of Babylonia]." ''Myths of Babylonia and Assyria'', IndyPublish.com (ISBN 1421962977), December 30, 2005, pp. 240-259. Accessed March 5, 2008, at <http://www.sacred-texts.com/></ref> The Greeks at first regarded ''Helios'' as a son of heaven and earth but later came to associate the Sun with their god of truth, '''Apollo'''. According to the [[Apache Creation Story]], [[Creator]], the One Who Lives Above, created the sun by singing it into existence after he had created the Girl-Without-Parents.<ref>Welker, Glenn. "[http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm Apache Creation Story]" <Indians.org>, August 12, 2004. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> According to Hindu mythology, sun is worshiped as '''Surya'''one of the major deities.

The most common theme in all the sun-worship cults is the association of the sun with truth and justice personified. The second most common theme is the regarding of the sun as the creator.

=== Materialistic ===
According to the [[materialism|materialist]] and [[uniformitarianism|uniformitarian]] view, what eventually became the solar system initially existed as a large, rotating [[cloud]] of [[dust]] and [[gas]], composed of hydrogen and helium produced in the [[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]] as well as small amounts of heavier [[element]]s. Around 4.57 billion years ago, the cloud began to contract, perhaps as a result of a [[shock wave]] from a nearby [[supernova]]. [[Inertia]] caused the rotating cloud to flatten into a disk. Most of the mass concentrated in the middle, and began to heat up. Eventually, the kinetic energy of the hydrogen was sufficient to overcome the [[electromagnetic]] repulsion between the protons, and fusion began. The resulting solar wind helped clear away much of the material which had not coalesced into planets or other orbiting bodies.<ref>"[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_plan_1.html Cosmic Evolution, Epoch 4: Planetary Evolution]." ''[http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html Cosmic Evolution: From Big Bang to Humankind]'', Wright Center, [[Tufts University]]. Accessed March 6, 2008.</ref> The sun is most likely a third-generation star.

== Orbital characteristics and galactic relationships ==
The Sun orbits the galactic center at a distance less than half the total estimated radius of the [[galaxy]], and in an orbit inclined about 25° from the galactic plane. The eccentricity of the Sun's orbit is 0.07, about average in comparison to the eccentricities of the [[planet]]s and [[dwarf planet]]s of the [[solar system]]. At present the Sun lies 50 light years north of the galactic plane and is continuing to climb north of it as it approaches [[apsis|perigalacticon]].<ref name=LeDrew>LeDrew, Glenn. "[http://ottawa.rasc.ca/astronotes/1997/an9701p3.html Our Galactic Home]." ''AstroNotes'', 1997. Accessed January 17, 2008.</ref>

==Properties and Characteristics==
The sun accounts for 99.8% of our solar system's total mass. With a mass of 2 x 1030 kg, an atmospheric temperature of about 5800 K, and a luminosity of 4x1020 megawatts, the sun is by far the most extraordinary object during the day-time sky and of our solar system.
However within our Milky Way [[galaxy]] it is one of probably 100 billion of the same types of stars.

By mass, it is composed of 72% [[hydrogen]], 26% [[helium]] and 2% trace elements of [[oxygen]], [[carbon]], [[neon]], [[nitrogen]], [[magnesium]], [[iron]], and [[silicon]].<ref>[http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/sun_worldbook.html World Book Encyclopedia @ NASA]</ref>

Core temperatures reach 15,000,000 K (K = Kelvin) while the sun's surface or ''photosphere'' temperature is 5,800 K. When the photosphere is hit by the heat of the sun the temperature drops to a minimum of 4,000 K. It then continues further until it encounters a thin layer of [[atmosphere]] roughly 10,000 kilometers deep called the ''chromosphere'' and reverses trend to rise to 8,000 K. Even further is another part of the sun's total atmosphere called the ''corona'' that blends in with interplanetary space.

=== Relationship to Earth ===
The sun produces a vast amount of [[energy]], only a tiny fraction of which the Earth receives, yet this small amount powers practically all [[life]] (and [[industry]]) on Earth, either directly or indirectly. It is also the main force controlling Earth's [[climate]] and [[weather]]. [[Plant]]s and other organisms capture the energy of the sun in a process called [[photosynthesis]]. Animals and other [[heterotroph]]s obtain food and energy from consuming plants or from consuming [[animal]]s which have consumed the plants. Only a few microscopic organisms obtain energy directly from chemical reactions.

The tremendous light and heat that the sun releases, and the delicate position that the [[Earth]] occupies in relation to the sun, combine to make the sun an integral part of sustaining life.

[[Human]] civilization, too, is dependent on the sun. Much of humanity's [[industry|industrial]] energy needs are obtained through the combustion of [[fossil fuel]]s, the remains of dead plants and animals. Uneven heating of the atmosphere provides [[wind power]]. Also, the sun evaporates water from lower-lying bodies of water; this then falls as rain and flows back down channels, providing hydroelectric power. On a limited basis, [[solar power]] is directly utilized. [[Geothermal energy]] and [[nuclear energy]] are examples of energy sources to which the sun does not directly contribute.

=== Energy production and transport ===
The sun produces its energy through nuclear fusion.<ref name=sunspot1>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research2.html Sunspots: Modern Research, Page 2]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The favored model for energy production relies on tremendous pressures resulting from the sun's own mass to overcome the natural electrostatic repulsive forces that normally keep hydrogen atoms from coming together and fusing.<ref name=Britannica/>

The model for hydrogen fusion includes these three equations:

<math>{}^0_{-1}\!e + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^0_0\!\nu + \mbox{1.44 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^2_1\!\mbox{H} + {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} \to {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + \gamma + \mbox{5.49 MeV}</math>

<math>{}^3_2\!\mbox{He} + {}^3_2\!\mbox{He} \to {}^4_2\!\mbox{He}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H}+ {}^1_1\!\mbox{H} + \mbox{12.85 MeV}</math>

Here, <math>e</math> represents an electron, H means [[hydrogen]], He means [[helium]], <math>\gamma</math> represents a gamma photon, <math>\nu</math> represents a small, uncharged particle called a [[neutrino]] that is not supposed to have any proper mass, and the energy unit eV, or ''electron volt'', is the product of the charge on a single electron and the standard unit of electromotive force or electromotive potential.

The energy produced varies as the fourth power of the temperature--and at the temperatures thought to prevail in the sun's core, matter exists, not as ordinary matter with atomic nuclei and electrons, but as [[plasma]]--a form of super-hot matter in which atoms are totally denuded of their electrons.

The first equation above is assumed to be the rate-limiting step. The neutrinos produced should have an energy of 0.26 MeV--too little energy to be detectable by current technology. But processes occurring after this step ought to produce higher-energy neutrinos that ''would'' be detectable. Such neutrinos have been detected, but at a flux much smaller than predicted. This indicates that the presumed rates for these subsequent processes are higher than the true rates, or else the neutrinos produced somehow transform to a different type of neutrino that would be unobservable. That in turn would imply that neutrinos ''do'' have rest mass.<ref name=Britannica/>

According to current models, some of this energy is transferred to the surface by convection in the outer 20-30% of the body of the sun.<ref name=sunspot1/> [[Helium]] in this ''convective zone'' rises to or near the surface, releases its heat, and then sinks back to the center. Helium absorbs radiation more readily than does hydrogen, and for that reason the sun is always getting marginally brighter with the passage of time.<ref name=Britannica/>

The remaining energy is transferred in the gamma photons, which must take a "random walk" to reach the corona of the Sun. Current models suggest that the light generated by these processes takes 50 million years to reach the surface.<ref name=sunspot1/>

=== Sunspots ===
The earliest observations of sunspots might have been made in the fourth century BC by the Greeks. Chinese astronomical records dating back to 28 BC include descriptions of changing dark patches on the sun that might have been sunspots.<ref name=sunspot2>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/history.html Sunspots: History]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

[[Galileo Galilei]] in 1613 was the first astronomer to study sunspots in any detail. It was a revolutionary observation, and one that clashed greatly with Western man's ideas of the heavens, propounded chiefly by Aristotle, as a perfect, unblemished place.<ref name=sunspot2/><ref name=heavens>[[Paul]] describes a region called the "third heaven" as the actual "heaven" where [[God]] has His throne. See {{Bible ref|book=II_Corinthians|chap=12|verses=2}}. But the Bible was not yet readily available to laymen in Galileo's day, and Western man might naturally confuse God's heaven with the lesser "heaven" that we call "outer space" today.</ref>

An amateur astronomer, Heinrich Schwabe, was the first to note the ''sunspot cycle'' in 1843.<ref name=sunspotcycle>"[http://www.exploratorium.edu/sunspots/research4.html The Sunspot Cycle]." ''The Exploratorium'', 1998. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref> The sunspots are dark on account of their cooler temperature. This in turn is due to strong magenetic fields which allow the transport of heat via convective motion in the sun. At times these sunspots can be 50,000 miles in diameter and appear in two bands, one being north and the other south in the direction of the sun's equator.

Observations have also shown that the number and location of sunspots come and go in a semi-periodic 9.5 to 11-year solar cycles. At the start of this cycle they are about 30 degrees from the equator. Midway through, the cycle of the number of sunspots observed is maximum, usually about 15 degrees from the equator. Near the end of this on average 10.8-year cycle, the sunspots are very near the equator.<ref name=curious>"[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/sun.php The Sun]." ''Curious about Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer'', Cornell University, October 18, 2007. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref><ref name=Maunder>"[http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderf/ Factors Affecting Global Temperature]." ''Ponder the Maunder''. Accessed March 5, 2008.</ref>

== Problems for uniformitarian theories posed by the Sun ==
[[Uniformitarianism|Uniformitarians]] must admit that the sun continues to brighten as it continues to fuse hydrogen into helium. In fact, by uniformitarian estimates, the sun ought to be 40% brighter today than it was when the planets formed and 33% brighter than it was when life first formed (3.8 billion years ago by evolutionary assumptions). The Earth thus ought to be much hotter today than it once was--or rather, the Earth was much colder in the early days in which life has existed than it is today. The fossil record demonstrably does not bear this out.<ref name=Britannica/><ref name=Psarris>Psarris, Spike. ''Our Created Universe''. Seattle Creation Conference, 2007. Video presentation, 55 minutes.</ref> Uniformitarians answer that the Earth's atmosphere might be compensating for this increased brightness. (But these are often the same scientists who insist that industrial and transport-related introduction of [[carbon dioxide]] into Earth's atmosphere threatens to overheat the Earth, with potentially disastrous results.)

Uniformitarians have also had to admit that the sun rotates about 200 times more slowly than the [[nebula hypothesis]] would predict, simply on account of the contraction of the solar mass into its present volume. This violates of the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. This "angular momentum" problem has been apparent for hundreds of years and remains unresolved to this day.<ref name=Psarris/>

The sun's equatorial plane is inclined 7.25° to the ecliptic. (See [[Earth]].) By the nebula hypothesis, that inclination should be zero. The errant inclination poses an especially acute problem for the orbit of [[Neptune]]. Uniformitarians have speculated that a collision with an even larger object knocked the sun off a true perpendicular to its present inclination--but no scientist has offered a convincing speculation as to what that object might be.<ref name=Psarris/>

Conventional astronomers, [[Carl Sagan]] among them, insist that our star is mediocre and unremarkable. Yet the G-type of star is relatively rare, and furthermore its mass and position in the galaxy lie within very narrow tolerances for the support of life. The sun is also a singular star, not part of a binary--also a rare finding--and is remarkably stable in its energy output. These facts combine to make the sun an unusually hospitable star for a planet to have life on it.<ref name=Psarris/>

Finally, the only reason that uniformitarians can cite for a great age of the Sun is the apparent great age of the Earth.<ref name=Britannica/>. Astronomer John Eddy has frankly admitted that the Sun itself gives no clue to any such tremendous age, and that the acceptance of a very young age of the Sun, like the six-thousand-plus years calculated by [[James Ussher]], might logically follow from a modicum of new evidence:<ref name=Psarris/><ref name=Ussher>Eddy, John. Remarks at a seminar reported in ''Geotimes'', 23:18, September, 1978. Quoted in [[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop", in [[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pp. 891-2.</ref>{{cquote|There is no evidence based solely on solar observations, Eddy stated, that the sun is 4.5-5 x 109 years old. "I suspect," he said, "that the Sun is 4.5-5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop [[James Ussher|Ussher]]'s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don't think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that."}}

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

{{Solarsystem}}

Talk:Embraced deceit

2008-03-10T20:20:53Z

Heffalump: /* non-existant? */

==Andy Conflating Terms==
If this is actually different than deceit, and if your liberal examples are all of embraced deceit, then maybe you should move them over here and admit that liberals don't uniquely practice deceit. As you've conceded, there are some [[Richard Nixon|conservative examples]] of deceit, right? In short, don't conflate the terms, and expect us to (1) ignore or (2) not notice it. Also, please don't take this as a waiver of my objection to "embraced deceit" being practiced only by liberals. But that's for another day.-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 14:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: No, we won't be allowing the [[placement bias]] that you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:36, 8 March 2008 (EST)
::Andy, I merely propose using your own terms in the manner that you suggest them. You yourself have said that your examples of deceit are in fact examples of "embraced deceit," which is a subset of run of the mill deceit. Why do you object to your own term being used?-'''αmεσ''' [[User_talk:AmesG | (advocate)]] 15:13, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::: Ames, that's not what I said, as not all of the examples are [[embraced deceit]]. I'm not going to spend all afternoon correcting you. Contribute, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:18, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Parody? ==

I am trying to decide if this particular article is a parody, or if the entire Conservapedia website is a parody. It must surely be one or the other. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:33, 8 March 2008 (EST)

: Humblpi, perhaps you're a parody of a clueless [[liberal]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:34, 8 March 2008 (EST)

::No, but I am genuinely puzzled. As far as I can see, you coin a phrase ("embraced deceit") out of thin air, create an article about it, and then add a comment that "Embraced deceit is common among liberals, but non-existent among conservatives". And to support this sweeping generalisation you point to the list at [[Deceit]], which is a very one-sided list of examples that is systematically purged of any mention of a deceit that does not fit your agenda. More of a bootstrap technique than anything like evidence for the claim. The article at [[Liberal friendship]] is the same. There is no justification for the assertion that "liberals" treat friendship any differently than "conservatives", and any challenge to your opinion, even any request for evidence to support the assertion, is met with scorn and ejection. It seems a funny way to run an encyclopedia that aims to be trustworthy and to tell the unbiased truth. That's all. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 15:42, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== non-existant? ==

Really, Conservatives never are deceitful? Wow, that must be pretty cool [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 14:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:It appears that Andy wanted that sentence to be in the article. check history.
thanks--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 16:20, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Buddhism

2008-03-10T18:34:08Z

Heffalump: /* Teachings */ removed antichristian bias

[[Image:China B.jpg|right]]
'''Buddhism''' is classified as the fifth largest religion in the world. It is a belief system which teaches that desire causes suffering and if desire is eliminated, enlightenment and [[Nirvana]] are attained. Buddhism is a [[Dharmic religion]] and is often viewed as a philosophy more than a religion because gods are not necessary or primary in Buddhist thought. Much of modern Buddhism is atheistic or agnostic in practice. The term Buddha means "the enlightened one."

==Founder==

Buddhism was founded by an [[India|Indian]] prince, [[Siddhartha Gautama]], who, after being sheltered from coming into contact with suffering due to disease, poverty and death until adulthood, finally observed the suffering of his people during his first walk outside the palace grounds. After that he worked to discover the reason for suffering and pain. He studied a number of the disciplines of the day, seeking ultimate truth. After finding other approaches to understanding lacking, he went into meditation for 49 days, vowing not to move until he had attained enlightenment. After great personal struggle he achieved enlightenment, and began to teach the principles that are now associated with Buddhism.

The philosophy has its roots in [[Hinduism]] and Vedic religion, to which Gautama belonged until the foundation of Buddhism.

==View of God==

Some Buddhist scriptures and some sects, like the Mahayana school, acknowledge that gods exist,<ref>[http://wri.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/buddhism.html Buddhism]</ref><ref>[http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/budgod.html Do Buddhists Believe in God?]</ref> but do not consider that knowledge crucial to an individual's practice of Buddhist teachings. The Buddha taught that we should not speculate about what we cannot know, and that speculation about [[God]] is pointless. Buddhists' priorities are release from suffering (by learning to cease striving after objects of desire and avoiding objects of discomfort) and direct experience of the true nature of reality. Many modern strains of Buddhism are [[atheist|atheistic]] in nature, thus creating a paradox as to why they are called a religion. They can be considered to be philosophies of life. Certain denominations, such as the Mahayana tradition, believe in [[Bodhisattvas]], or quasi-divine cosmic beings that seek to benefit others by remaining in a state of [[Samsara]], or eternal rebirth. These are prayed to, for advice and spiritual guidance, and often venerated.

==Teachings==

The highest ideal for a Buddhist is the state of Nirvana, or release from eternal rebirth, a state beyond conceptual thought. This descibes a state that is achieved through meditation and practice that is beyond the categories and conditioning that are a result of our education, experiences and the limitations of language. This state has been described by the Buddha as follows:
<blockquote>''"There is O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed. Were there not, o monks, this Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. ~ Udana, 80-81"''</blockquote>

Adherents claim that Buddhism is a very practical [[philosophy]], which teaches us to focus our attention on personal experience, to determine what is the cause of our discontents ("dukkha") and to find a way to liberate ourselves from these, all the while expressing "metta", which is universal, unconditional love, and "karuna", which roughly translates to "compassion", towards others. These teachings are encapsulated in the [[Four Noble Truths]].<ref>[http://www.parami.org/buddhistanswers/four_noble_truths.htm Four Noble Truths]</ref>

Buddhism is commonly held to be a relatively peaceful religion, due to its less "absolutist" view of morality and the fluid nature of thought that encouraged not just acceptance of other faiths and ideas, but also examination of those ideas and, if necessary, applying them to ones life. This also allows people to follow Buddhism as a philosophy, and Islam, Judaism or Christianity as a faith, without contradicting any principles of either following.<ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref>

It should be noted that the ideals of tolerance and introspection among the Buddhist faithful were often ignored by the leaders of Buddhist nations (much like the leaders of most other nations often disobeyed their own religions fundamental laws in the in the interest of what was practical) <ref>http://buddhism.about.com/</ref> and persecution of Christians in predominantly Buddhist nations does occur today.<ref>http://www.persecution.org/whitepapers/vietnam-2002-03.html</ref><ref>http://www.christianpersecution.info/news/new-evidence-of-religious-persecution-in-vietnam-despite-release-prisoner/</ref><ref>http://persecution.org/Countries/laos.html</ref> It is important to note that only around 55% of Vietnam is Buddhist (see below), and that Buddhist monks took an active role in protesting the the corrupt Diem regime and the Vietnam War.

==Buddhism Today==
[[Image:Nara.jpg|thumb|Great Buddha at [[Nara]]]]
Buddhism is currently the majority religion in the following states:

Country Percent

Thailand 95%

Cambodia 90

Myanmar 88

Bhutan 75

Sri Lanka 70

Tibet * 65

Laos 60

Vietnam 55

Japan ** 50

* [[China]]: Buddhism is most widely practiced, with an estimated 100 million adherents.

* Tibet is an estimate, as there has never been a reliable survey. Furthermore, it is debatable whether Tibet should be considered an independent nation.

** [[Japan]] is an "odd" case, as surveys of adherence are conducted rather differently. Firstly it is debatable at what point various Japanese beliefs shift from being traditions to being religions. This is indicated by the fact that "85% of Japanese claim Buddhism as their preferred religion", yet "75% percent claim to practice and believe in no religion" -a more accurate estimate may be 20%.
<ref>[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_buddhist.html The Largest Buddhist Communities]</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://wri.leaderu.com/wri-table2/buddhism.html#intro Buddhism]
*[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ Access to Insight: Readings in Theravada Buddhism]

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Buddhism| ]]

Heart

2008-02-21T14:37:40Z

Heffalump:

The '''heart''' is an [[organ]] that pumps [[blood]] via the [[circulatory system]] to the rest of the body. The heart is a marvelously crafted [[muscle|muscular]] pump and in humans, the heart of an [[embryo]] begins beating 21 days after [[conception]]. According to the [[Bible]] the heart is the seat for our deepest emotions and wishes. Change in personality has been noted in heart transplant survivors consistent with this.

The heart is situated inside the [[thorax]] in vertebrates and in human body is slightly to the left. Human heart consists of 4 main chambres, 2 [[atria]] and 2 [[ventricles]]. The right side of the heart receives blood from the body and pumps it to the lungs where it is oxygenated and returns to the left side of the heart. The left side of the heart pumps the oxygen carrying blood to the rest of the body.

According to the scriptures, Heart is the seat of the [[sin]]. <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=858.# The seat of Sin, the heart</ref>
== See also ==

*[[heart attack]]
*[[heart failure]]
*[[Rheumatic heart disease]]
*[[Mitral stenosis]]
*[[mitral regurgitation]]

== references ==

[[Category:Anatomy]]

Talk:Date of creation

2008-02-21T14:30:58Z

Heffalump: /* Reason for reversion? */

Good NPOV article as it stands! This is the first neutral treatment of a YEC topic I have yet seen. Wowzers. That said, I just have to comment on how ridiculous the idea of a 4004 bc creation date is. We have Egyptian mummies from 8,000 B.C.!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:Don't forget that YEC's may not accept dating methods used by archaeologists. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I am the token OEC here... [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:30, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::The linked article points two two different variants of OEC. There is the "the original 6 days are metaphorical and can be billions of years" and there is the "it was 6x 24 hour days, but with the abridgment of the lineage, it could be thousands of years between significant events than the genealogy would suggest" --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:33, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

LOL I know you're the token OEC creationist MountainDew :-). You really are in the minority, aren't you, which is sad, because you're so much more cool and reasonable.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Please explain how on earth an article which presupposes there WAS a creation can ever have a NPOV. First of all, the term "creation" implies a creator, whereas many scientific theories of how the universe may have begun either have no definitive starting point (e.g. Steady-State), or have no preceding moments prior to the instant (see Hawking's notions about how the edge of time/space folds back to give no distinct 'creation' moment'), or there were events which preceded the 'big bang', but these occur outside conventional 4 dimensional space-time. Yes 'big bang' admittedly is a scientific theory which does have a 'creation' moment, but this theory does not comment on what might have preceded it, or whether anything might have caused such an event other than quantum vaccuum fluctuations. Where is ANY of this stuff in the article???

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 16:20, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:This article's only had this title for a week or so. It is clearly talking primarily about the Biblical record of creation, not other "creation" events, so perhaps there is a case for renaming it to reflect that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== An intresting quote ==

I find this quote interesting:
<blockquote>"In a word, the Scriptural data leave us wholly without guidance in estimating the time which elapsed between the creation of the world and the deluge and between the deluge and the call of Abraham. So far as the Scripture assertions are concerned, we may suppose any length of time to have intervened between these events which may otherwise appear reasonable. The question of the antiquity of man is accordingly a purely scientific one, in which the theologian as such has no concern." [http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Comments of B.B. Warfield on Dr. Green]</blockquote>
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:::One wonders how he missed the chronogenealogies in Genesis to make a statement like that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::II Peter 3:8: 'One day is with the LORD as a thousand years...' --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:32, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::And the rest of the verse: '...and a thousand years is as one day.' That just cancelled that out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== American Time ==
Since you are pro-american, you should use an america based timezone

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 19:43, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Heh heh. The article as it currently stands was largely written by me, and I'm an Aussie, so I don't agree! I could give a serious reply or two, but I presume that wasn't meant as a serious comments, so I won't. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:20, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Secular Science ==

"Based mainly on geological dating methods, however, secular scientific research generally dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago."

Isn't saying 'secular science' redundant? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 17:33, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:Absolutely not, given that (a) modern science owes its existence to a Christian worldview, and (b) not all scientists are secular. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::Regardless of a scientist's religious convictions, wouldn't all research be secular? How can you research the supernatural? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:45, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I just thought that measure/test/observe was just about the entire basis of the scientific method. I've been known to pull B's in science classes though, so I could be wrong here. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, measuring, testing, and observing are the basis of the scientific method. But we are talking about origins science here. See ''origins science'' in [[science]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

So... judging by the editing going on, creation scientists aren't Christian, but objective scientists are secular? Are the Conservapedia sysops trying to bait people, or do they really think that the majority of people think that way? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:39, 5 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have interesting logic. Changing "Christian researchers" to "creation scientist" does ''not'' mean that that latter are not Christian. And where does it say that objective scientists are secular? Or would you be reading your own beliefs into the text?
:Sorry about the bracket. I didn't delete it; I just (accidentally) put it in the footnote instead of the main text.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::My own beliefs? You were the one who added the word secular back in. There is absolutely no reason why a scientist who has concluded that the evidence leads to the big bang ''must'' be non Christian. And, since the creation "science" calculation is based entirely on the Bible, there is no reason to believe that a creation "scientist" ''isn't'' Christian, no?
::And I didn't think the bracket got deleted I just couldn't find it anywhere! Ha ha. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:01, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::: You are correct that some Christians believe in the Big Bang. However, the "science" of the Big Bang is secular, in that it first rejects the Biblical explanation to come up with a naturalistic one.
::: Yes, the creationist calculation comes from a book that claims to be a historical record, but we are, after all, talking about ''history'' here, not ''science''. The study of things in the present (with the scientific method) is ''science''. The study of the ''past'' is ''history''. The best sources we have for history are historical documents.
::: And why do you put the words "science" and "scientist" after "creation" in quotes? Are you questioning whether they really are scientists, despite their being no room for doubt on that?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:50, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::If you take into context that there are two ways to interpret the Bible, specifically Genesis, you don't have to reject the Bible to study the Big Bang. In addition, I would certainly hope that creation scientists also reject the Biblical information when they do their research/science before they conclude that the world was created (literally) as it says in the Bible. If they do not reject this assumption than how can any of their science be valid? I just think that the word secular in this case is unfair and it does not say to the general reader what you think it says.
::::As for creation "science" I was specifically referencing calculating the date of the creation, as in this article. There are creation scientists, but they support the calculation of the age of the earth made by creation researchers. If this is not a correct interpretation of the date of creation then we need to fix the article to include this (I'm only as good as my data!)[[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: There are multiple ways to interpret any document, hypothetically, but a straightforward reading of the Bible (creation from the formation of the universe to the appearance of man took six days, plus the order of creation, including the Earth before the stars) in totally incompatible with the Big Bang scenario.
::::: Why should creation scientists reject what they and I would argue is the most reliable source of information? The Biblical worldview is what gave rise to science, so rejecting that amounts to rejecting the basis for science. But remember (I think I said it in on this page) that we are talking ''history'' here, not science, and although science can be a useful tool in studying history, it cannot prove the history for us. Therefore we all start with assumptions; the creationary assumption is that the Bible is an accurate history, and it's in that framework that creationary scientists do their science. Atheistic scientists start with the assumption of naturalism, and do their science within that framework.
::::: I find your explanation for putting quotes around "science" hard to accept. If you were using it just for "science" in this context, I'd understand, but that doesn't explain why you also put them around "scientists".
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:56, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'm going to combine my literal/allegorical interpretation response below. As for why would they reject a reliable source: if you were to reject Newton's laws, and start from observation and the scientific method, you would still result in deriving Newton's laws. If creation scientists can't reject the Bible and still conclude it is correct, how do they know it is even an accurate resource? They have faith that it is, but faith is not science. And despite the fact that we are talking about history, you can use science to investigate history. You can't determine everything with 100% certainty (at least until we invent time travel), but you can certainly get a good idea of what is happening.
:::::I don't care if you find the explanation hard to accept; this entire discussion you have been interpreting everything I say in the most difficult possible way. How hard is it to understand that if one studies "science" they are a "scientist?" If you buy it for one you must buy it for the other, otherwise you are just being argumentitive. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The difference between Newton's laws and the origin of the world is that the Newton's laws are ''observable''; the origin of the world is not. That's why the latter is "history" and the former is not history. Thus your analogy is invalid.
:::::: How do creation scientists know that creation is correct without referring to the Bible? As scientists, they can't, just as evolutionary scientists can't know that their story is correct. But unlike the evolutionary scientists, they have reliable historical documents that reveal the history to them.
:::::: I'm sorry if you think that I've been interpreting your comments "in the most difficult possible way", but I've encountered so many people who, for example, simply reject that creation scientist are scientists ''simply because they are creationists'', that I find that I have to drill right down to what they are actually thinking and challenge their presuppositions before it's possible to properly discuss the issue.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:07, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Failure to include information ==

This article suffers from an abject failure to describe the vast bodies of scientific evidence that are in support of a recent date of Creation. Is there anyone willing to take this on? --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 15:52, 14 June 2007 (EDT)
:Anyone could do it. This includes works by Whitcomb and Morris, links to the Creation Research Institute, various others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

== Dual-user provenance ==
The expansion that I have just added of [[James Ussher]]'s calculations of the date of creation are a dual submission of original work. I am the same user as Temlakos on [[CreationWiki]], and the edits to the "Calculated dates" section are based on the section titled "James Ussher" in [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Anno_Mundi&oldid=104582 this version] of the CreationWiki article titled [http://creationwiki.org/Anno_Mundi Anno Mundi]. That section is entirely my own work.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:43, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== YEC v. OEC ==
Doesn't CreationWiki support both old and young earth creationism. Why is everyone so hung up on the age of the Earth. God made it, who cares how old it is.{{unsigned|TheisticEvolution}}
:First, why don't you sign your posts? That's what the Signature button is for.
:Second: What we're "hung up" on, is the truth, and exerting the best of our ability to find it. We should care how old the earth is ''because the [[Bible]] gives us definite clues'' that make sense only in the context of a young earth. You will find these clues mainly in {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}, and then in {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-32}}. In short: the chronology and genealogy tell us that only so many years can have passed since Creation.
:Now if the Bible is incorrect in this, then it would not be trustworthy in the most important thing to which ''only'' the Bible attests--and that is the nature of [[Sin (Fundamentalism)|sin]] and of the need for [[Jesus Christ]] to make amends for it. (I would mention [[Jesus Christ]] Himself, except that He is in fact the Best-attested Figure in recorded history, with more references mentioning Him than any other person of historical interest.)--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:05, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, so if Genesis isn't giving us a literal timescale, then Jesus wasn't here to save us? I'm going to hold off on my criticism of that statement until I know that I interpreted your statement correctly. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
:::: No, that is not the case. What TerryH said was that if Genesis is ''incorrect'' on the timescale, then it would not be ''trustworthy'' on other things. He didn't say that it wouldn't be ''correct'' on other things. That is, if a person says some false things, it doesn't mean that everything they say is false. But if you know some of what they say is false, why should you take their word on other things that you don't know the accuracy of? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:53, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::That's why I wanted a clarification :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Criticize all you want--but if the [[Bible]] is found in definite error on any one point, then it ceases to be trustworthy on any other point.
:::The Bible itself has multiple testaments to its all-or-nothing standing as regards the truth. For one thing, the phrase rendered in [[English]] "His Mercy endureth forever" actually refers ''not'' to mercy as we understand it, but to [[God]]'s Word being His Bond. God is a Being of His Word. If God says that He will do a thing, He does it, and if He says that he will see a thing done, He will see it done. And as a corollary to that, if God says that a thing occurred, then it occurred--and if God went into detail, then those details are matters of fact.
:::Therefore, if God said that "such-a-man lived so-many years and begat such-a-son," then you can bank on it. And if God gives us a long string of years-at-birth-of-sons, then you can reliably add them up--and you can be sure that only so much time has passed since the beginning ''of'' time--at least by an earthly clock, which is the only sort of clock that need matter to us.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:27, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It just seems like a rather shaky way to interpret the Bible, is all. Genesis can be true without being literal, and you don't have to fight against all of this seemingly contrary evidence. If He could make the universe however he wanted, why would God have made it to look like something other than what He has layed down in the Bible? You may dissagree with conclusions of traditional scientists, but you can't deny that it sure looks like the earth is billions of years old, and God would have known this when he layed down the scripture. It does explain why people try so hard to compare 21st century science to a 10th century BC unattributed doccupment.
::::And all of this really goes back to TheisticEvolution's question: who cares? Must you declare your belief in a young earth before you ask God to redeem your sins? Can you go to heaven if you believe the scientific explanation of creation? In the scheme of things this is the much more important question, and the one that gets overlooked because of all the disagreement over the rest. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 15:41, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::How can Genesis "be true without being literal" when it is making truth-claims?
:::::And what makes you think that the universe looks as old as you think it is? I have seen old people and I've seen young people, and I've seen young people grow old. So if I see a person who's age I don't know, I can compare then to ones that I do know and get at least some idea of their age. And I could say the same for trains, houses, appliances, and almost anything that you like to name. However, I have ''not'' seen young earths and old earths and young earths growing old, so I don't have any such yardstick to compare this Earth against. Therefore, I am not in a position to say that it "looks" old, and I suggest that neither are you. Additionally, until the advent of the assumption of uniformitarianism around 200 years ago, virtually nobody thought that the world looked "old" (as in millions of years or more). The idea that it looks "old" has only come about since the idea that it is old has been promoted, not because of looks. So contrary to your claim, I ''can'' deny that it "looks like the earth is billions of years old".
:::::The Bible is not unattributed, and not all from the 10th century BC. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::If you were to say that someone had an angry look on their face, that would be true and literal. If you were to say that they had a stone-cold glare, that would be true, but not literal. The glare does not change temperature. I believe that, while God created light, dark, earth, water, grass, animals, and man, he didn't make them ''literally'' as it is said in Genesis. In this way Genesis is "true without being literal" "when it is making truth-claims"
:::::This is simply a semantics argument. I really hope you know I didn't literally mean the earth "looked" old.
:::::According to the CP [[Genesis]] page, it was written somewhere in the vicinity of 1400-500BC. There is also considerable question as to who authored it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: You've explained well how something can be true but not literal, but your example was not of a truth-claim, i.e. claiming that something specific is the case, and you've not applied your reasoning to the Bible. How can you read Genesis 1 as "true but not literal", when it is making specific non-metaphorical claims about history?
:::::: I've heard a number of people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so no, I didn't realise that you didn't mean what you appeared to be saying.
:::::: 1400-500 B.C. is not synonymous with the 10th century B.C., is it? And although the [[Genesis]] article mentions the later date as being promoted, that date has no credibility.
:::::: The Bible claims to be written by God, but "ghost-written" by human authors. In ''some'' cases, there is no certainty about who those human authors were, and when it comes to the Bible, some people will question the truth of every last point, so there will be those who question the human authorship of those parts where the authorship is not in doubt, but that doesn't all add up to it being "unattributed".
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Again you are being difficult. I am obviously not a Biblical historian so why in the world are you giving me such a hard time about trying to recall the date of Genesis from memory? I remembered the 1000, so I thought 10th century. And all your arguing still doesn't change the meaning of my statement. And it's an insult to my intellegence to assume that I think you can physically look at the earth and see it's 4.54 Ga old. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: As you are taking offence at some of my responses, I'll limit my response here to just your last point, by reminding you that I've had many people claim that the Earth simply ''looks'' old, so it was an understandable, even if incorrect, way to read your comments. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

First of all, Mr. Jazzman, I shall ask you to produce your "seemingly contrary evidence"--more on that word ''seemingly'' later on. I ask this to challenge you. But I am not challenging you to fight. I am merely challenging you to think, and think ''hard'', about the quality of what you take to be the evidence contrary to a young earth.

This will probably surprise you, but much of the evidence from the solar system ''is not consistent'' with an old system, and an old earth to be a part of it. For example: the planet [[Mercury]] ought not have a magnetic field. And yet it does. For another example: the rings of [[Saturn]], as seen by [[Voyager I]], have an intricate pattern that no [[Astronomy|astronomer]] has ever been able to explain. And for that matter, the Great Red Spot on [[Jupiter]] and the Great Dark Spot on [[Neptune]] ought to have dissipated long ago, but have not. These do not add up to an old solar system.

Indeed, were the solar system half as old as the traditional scientists pretend, then the [[moon]] ought to have touched the earth that long ago. If the earth were much older than ''ten'' thousand years, its own magnetic field ought to have been strong enough to tear it apart.

In short, I don't have to fight contrary evidence. I have examined it and found much of it to be based on either:
# Groundless supposition, or:
# Outright fraud.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:10, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:You know very well what arguments are used, especially if you have done as much research as it seems you have. I don't really see any point in listing them, as we both know what we are talking about. Though I would like to see some examples of outright fraud within the mainstream scientific community. And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed so unless you are claiming some sort of systemic conspiracy to ensure old earth theory reigns (for which there is no motive or profit), you should be able to find this fraud through mainstream resources.

:I have also done research on creation theory and a lot of that doesn't hold water as well. For example, many of the assertations are that if you were to take X pattern (such as the decay of the earth's magnetic feild or the depletion of the Mississippi river delta, etc) back 4.5 billion years you would get some obviously incorrect result. In other cases they find things that can't yet be explained (or at least they say they can't be explained; since I'm not an expert I just have to believe that the creationists are telling the truth), so therefore all of old earth theory ''must'' be wrong. But these are both plagued by incorrect assumptions; the former assumes that any pattern must have been that way from the beginning of time, the latter that old earth theory currently has an answer for everything. (I can't comment specifically on your examples because you have stated them as fact with no way for me to review the evidence myself).

:But really there is no point with arguing the science. If every one of your pieces of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt you still have your scripture and your faith; I would need to see mainstream physicists, geologists and mathemetitions disprove, starting from fundamental principals of science, every piece of evidence. This whole thing started because I wanted to know the theology, not the science. Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000? Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away? And why is the earth round? Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth, and all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky. Shouldn't the earth be flat? And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?

:By the way, the internet is not a great medium for having a civil conversation; civility is often in the tone. I assure you that I am not trying to attack, but I am trying my hardest to remain civil. I believe that you are as well and I thank you for not resorting to low-ball attacks on my character. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::''And no fair using sources from a creationist; the scientific community is peer-reviewed...'': No fair drawing a distinction between "creationist" and "scientific community" and between "creationist" and "peer-reviewed". Creation scientists are part of the scientific community, and their work is peer reviewed just as much (if not more) than that of non-creationists.
::I'll let TerryH respond regarding fraud, but there ''is'' a motive for what is not claimed to be a "conspiracy", but for a "ruling paradigm". The motive is a spiritual one—atheists, trying to promote their religious beliefs, ''want'' to push an old Earth, simply because it contradicts the Bible.
::Regarding your examples of incorrect creationist arguments, you have actually misrepresented the creationist arguments. They don't argue that because something can't be explained, the old-Earth idea is incorrect. Rather, they argue that because the old-Earth idea can't explain something, the old-Earth idea is not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be. Similar with the Mississippi-delta-type arguments. They are not claiming that these arguments disprove an old Earth; they are claiming that old-Earth-type arguments produce results that are not always consistent with an old Earth, and are therefore ''not reliable'' (note that I didn't say ''not correct'').
::''Why would God create a world with 800,000 layers of ice, when he could create a world with 6,000?'': Why should he create a world with one and only one layer of ice per year?
::''Why would he make stars more than 6,000 light years away?'': Why not? The bigger the universe is, the greater He shows His power to be (up to a point).
::''And why is the earth round?'': A) Because that's the way he designed it. B) Because that shape is a good shape for an Earth. Otherwise, there would be some ridiculously-high "mountains" on the corners of the cube (if it was as cube, for example). God makes thing according to (His) good design, not according to whimsical fantasy.
::''Revelations has horsemen in four corners of the earth...'': And we still use such ''metaphors'' today. So what?
::''...all of the world's population will whitness Jesus come down from the sky.'': Possible if (a) all the world's population has television or similar, or (b) there is some supernatural display allowing this on a near-spherical planet.
::''Shouldn't the earth be flat?'': Why?
::''And even if some of scripture were wrong (say God himself comes down and says "Genesis was true, but not literal") why does that neccessitate that Jesus was not our savior?'': See my chronologically-previous post above about correctness vs. trustworthiness.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::In answer to your questions: as to 800,000 layers of ice, you're forgetting one big event that probably laid those layers down in ''one'' year instead of 800,000: the [[Great Flood]].

::The light-time problem takes just a little bit longer to explain. The best model I have seen is the "white-hole" theory by D. Russell Humphreys. That model--which relies on the general theory of [[relativity]], BTW--states that the universe began, ''not'' with an explosion of all of space from a point, but rather with the introduction--through a white hole--of lots of matter ''into'' what was once empty space, with nothing in it. So much matter came through, in fact, that the universe was too dense for the kind of space-time continuum that we're familiar with. The original space-time continuum had ''four'' dimensions of space and ''none'' of time.

::Gradually, beginning at the edges, this matter began to thin out, and time began to flow. But toward the center, time did not flow until about 6,000 years ago.

::So: the ''earth'' is 6,000 years old, because 6,000 years of time has flowed near the earth. The rest of the cosmos might be far older--by a clock in the fringes of space. By ''our'' clocks, it's all 6,000 years old, but the stars on the fringes have undergone accelerated aging.

::Maybe you didn't know that Albert Einstein figured out long ago that time was not uniform. Time, and the flow of time, depend on your frame of reference. And the concept "frame of reference" includes more than position and its derivatives (velocity, acceleration) with respect to time. "Frame of reference" also includes the strength of the local gravity field--because what ''is'' gravity, except the ''curvature'' of space? And, of course, time always flows ''more slowly'' at the bottom of any gravity well than at the top.

::The Scriptural reference to "four corners" actually translates as four ''winds''--the four points of the compass. So that doesn't violate physical laws, either. Other verses in Scripture are amply consistent with a rounded earth.

::Now about "peer review": I have the direct experience of "peer review." "Peer review" means a bunch of guys sitting around a table and asking each other, "Is this guy for real, or are his theories just flat-out too outrageous to be true?" And contrary to what you might think--and I know this because I've been there--"peer reviewers" are human, too, and they have a human weakness: that they always seek consensus, because they're not willing to think for themselves. And so a creationist submits a paper, and nobody wants even to review it, because his theories are too outrageous for them even to admit the possibilities. Nothing nefarious (well, sometimes it is, but not usually); just a case of "[[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong|His theory cannot possibly work under our theories, and so his theory must be wrong]]."

::That one [[logical fallacy]] has blinded more men to more great scientific discoveries than has any other. It's really simple to fall into through no fault of one's own. It blinded me, too, for many years, until--well, [[John Newman]], the former slave trader, said it best, didn't he? "I once was lost, but now am found;/Was blind, but now I see."--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:40, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I don't understand all the physics and maths behind Humphreys' model, but I don't think it's true to say that originally there was no "time" dimension. Rather, time was almost stationary (or went backward?). And you mean [[John Newton]], not Newman. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::I'll try to respond to everything as succinctly as I can
::::'''Peer review''': This was mostly a vocabulary ...thing... on my part. What I meant was: find me an example of fraud which was found by people who do not have a vested interest in doing so. In other words, a creation scientist finding fraud by himself would not be credible to me, because finding this fraud only helps his own work. If the creation scientist is the one who finds the fraud, but then the general scientific community (or a credible entry wherein) agrees that there were fraudulent actions, there's no reason ''not'' to believe that the fraud took place.
::::'''Incorrect creationist arguments''': I took these from the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page. "Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth" and "Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old." I don't think I'm being unfair with my interpretation (the former quotation is only partial, but the latter is the full quotation from the YEC page). Both of these assume that, when you take these trends back 4.5 billion years, they give you results that we know are wrong. This in no way shows that the old earth theory is "not as certain and absolute as it's usually made out to be." These are both straw man arguements. No serious old earth scientist would argue that the Mississipi river delta existed 4.5 Ga ago, so this argument does not hold water. No pun intended.
::::'''Why should...''': None of those answers (Philip) advanced the conversation. I say again, sometimes reading context is a useful skill. Obviously all of those questions were trying to get at the question I've been asking all along. If (a) God could design the universe anyway he wants, (b) you must take the Bible literally for it to be trustworthy, and (c) God is omnipotent, why would God create a universe which leaves certain clues which, when using Occom's razor principal, seem (to the majority of His creation) to destabalize His entire following? And you say that "four corners" was a metaphor! Why can Revelation be a metaphor but not Genesis?
::::'''Great Flood''': I have had at least 4 college-level courses in which we studied phase diagrams, and one studying heat transfer, and I can safely say that ice couldn't form layers, and for the 800,000 layers (or 794,000) to form all within the timeframe of the flood the amount of cooling needed would be astronomical.
::::'''Relativity''': I know quite a bit about relativity, but I'm in no way an expert. The white hole view of the cosmos is either supported by Einstein or not.

::::Again, my intent was never to argue the ''science'', the whole time I've been asking about the ''theology''. I ask for the third time: Who cares when the earth was made, so long as I take Jesus Christ as my lord and savior? Why fight so hard to get people to believe in the part of the Bible that has nothing to do with the important part, forgiveness of sin? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:39, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Almost all exposure of fraud is by those with a vested interest. The Piltdown fraud was exposed by evolutionists who realised that Piltdown was inconsistent with what they "now" (at the time) believed about the evolution of man, so they had a motive to find fault with it. But I think your main point is that fraud has to be demonstrated as such, not just claimed. On that, I agree, but that can be regardless of motive and regardless of worldview (creationary or evolutionary).
:::::Okay, I retract (and replace) my comment about you misrepresenting the creationist arguments. The page you relied on did not make the point clear (I have clarified it now), but it is true that most creationists (i.e. creationists associated with the main YEC organisations, such as ICR, CMI, AiG, and etc.) do not argue that the arguments listed on the [[Young Earth Creationism]] page ''prove'' scientifically that the world is not old. The point of those arguments, despite it not being clarified in the leading paragraph of the relevant section of that page, is to show that arguments based on uniformitarian assumptions give inconsistent results, so such arguments are not absolute and not reliable. The Mississippi example is to show that the ''evidence'', according to uniformitarian assumption, is inconsistent with the supposed age of the river, not that it is inconsistent with the age of the planet.
::::: I find that if I "read in context" in cases such as these, I often misunderstand the context. You need to be clearer as to just what you are getting at. Creationists (by and large) don't argue that you must take the Bible literally. They argue that you should take it the way it was meant to be understood, e.g. poetry as poetry, metaphor as metaphor, and literal history as literal history. And if the literal history is not trustworthy, how can you have confidence that the spiritual pronouncements (e.g. that heaven exists) are trustworthy? I believe that Occam's razor encourages us to take the creation account literally. Which is the most straightforward explanation? That the universe was created by a Being capable of creating it, or that the universe popped into existence out of nothing for no reason? The problem is not God leaving "certain clues" to "destabilize", but man's rejection of God's testimony and his determination to find an explanation that leaves God out. God clearly told us how long it took, so there is no ambiguity there. As for metaphor, we all use metaphors all the time, yet almost everyone can understand when metaphors are used and when someone is being literal, simply by their understanding of the language. That is, whether or not metaphor is used is dependent on the structure of the text. Revelation uses many metaphors, Genesis uses a few, but not so many. Genesis 1 uses almost none. That's a simple fact about the text itself. You can't claim something to be metaphor simply because it is inconsistent with an opposing claim.
::::: As far as the ice is concerned, I forgot to pick TerryH up on this. The ice wasn't formed ''during'' the flood, but ''after'' the flood, in the [[ice age]] which lasted for several hundred years.
::::: Humphreys' "white-hole cosmology" is based on Einstein's theories, but with a different starting assumption (a bounded universe) than the Big Bang (which assumes an unbounded universe). Einstein himself could not support it, of course, because the idea wasn't proposed until well after he was dead! :-)
::::: The reason that people care is simply because the secular (man-made) ideas on the origin and age of the universe, the Earth, life, etc. are in conflict with the biblical account, and many people therefore (correctly) choose one over the other, and (incorrectly) choose to reject the Bible, with the result (if they don't change their mind) that they reject the gift of salvation. See also [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/291 here].
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'm going to gracefully bow out before this just turns into an exercise in mud-slinging. Philip, you are interpreting what I say in whatever way suits your purposes, and frankly it's insulting to me. I have responses to all of your newest arguments, but I don't see why I should even bother, since you will just twist them around, or subtly change your own arguments. I talked to my dad last night (who was a Methodist minsister) and he finally answered the theology for me. I'm confident in my interpretation of the Bible and that's good enough for me. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:05, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::I'm sorry for any offence, but you are also offending me by claiming that my responses are not genuine ones. And your comment about your father "finally answering" your theology question implies that I failed to do so, when I made an explicit attempt to answer that very question. Furthermore, I try very hard to not indulge in mud-slinging. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:24, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Reason for reversion? ==
Wonder why my edit was reverted? That was my first contribution!!--[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 17:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)
:"Everyone knows that radioactive decay is accelerated in catastrophic events" is far too strong a statement. All that I have ever read in the literature is that radioactive decay ''did'' accelerate, perhaps ''once'' in the history of the earth--perhaps during Creation Week, or just before the [[Great Flood]], or sometime in between. I never read any claim that where you get disaster, you get accelerated decay.
:Beaides: the problem is that ''not'' everybody knows. Our job is to ''tell'' people things that the schools aren't telling them. But we have to make sure that we're telling them the right things.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:55, 20 February 2008 (EST)

thanks for explaining.I meant the nuclear delay acceleration during cataclysmal events like volcano eruption. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 09:30, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Antimicrobial resistance

2008-02-20T23:17:38Z

Heffalump:

Bacteria and other disease-causing [[organisms]] have a remarkable ability to mutate and acquire resistance genes from other organisms and thereby develop resistance to antimicrobial drugs. When an antimicrobial drug is used, the selective pressure exerted by the drug favors the growth of organisms that are resistant to the drug’s action. This has led to emergence of "super bugs" like [[MRSA]] ([[Methicillin resistant staph aureus]])
==References==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]

[[Category:Microbiology]]

Antimicrobial resistance

2008-02-20T23:16:45Z

Heffalump:

Bacteria and other disease-causing [[organisms]] have a remarkable ability to mutate and acquire resistance genes from other organisms and thereby develop resistance to antimicrobial drugs. When an antimicrobial drug is used, the selective pressure exerted by the drug favors the growth of organisms that are resistant to the drug’s action. This has led to emergence of "super bugs" like [[MRSA]]([[Methicillin resistant staph aureus]])
==References==
[http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/A-Z_Index/index.asp USDA Index]

[[Category:Microbiology]]

Evangelical

2008-02-20T23:13:25Z

Heffalump:

Generically, '''evangelical''' is a person whose beliefs are in agreement with [[Gospel]] and who communicates his [[faith]] to others so that they may benefit also. It may also describe a person whose beliefs are marked by an ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause<ref>[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=evangelical Princeton University]</ref> such as [[Christianity]]. Evangelical Christians have, in addition to spreading the word of God, have helped bring much needed medical and educational services to poor parts of the world,as part of their missionary activities.

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

==See Also==
*[[Evangelical Christians]]
*[[Evangelical atheist]]

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Christian terms]]

Talk:Date of creation

2008-02-20T22:55:50Z

Heffalump:

Date of creation

2008-02-20T19:55:34Z

Heffalump: /* Geological dating */

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Notation ==
Any year that purports to date from creation as an [[epoch]] is labeled '''AM''', for '''Anno Mundi''', which is [[Latin]] for "In the Year of the World."

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from [[Adam]] to [[Abraham]], listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… 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>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 23]], [[4004 BC]].<ref name=Ussher>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World]]'', [[Larry Pierce]], ed., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003 (ISBN 0890513600), pgh. 1ff.</ref> Ussher calculated the date of Creation by the following means:
*He accepted the date of the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] of Babylon at 562 BC.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 891</ref>
*He then assumed that Evil-Merodach began to reign in that year.<ref>[[James Ussher]], ''[[The Annals of the World|op. cit.]],'' pgh. 892</ref>
*King [[Jehoiachin]] received a pension from Evil-Merodach beginning in this year, and that he was taken captive 37 years before then, or in 599 BC.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=II_Kings|chap=25|verses=27-30}}</ref> (The final [[Fall of Jerusalem]] occurred eleven years later; hence Ussher places the Fall of Jerusalem in 588 BC, not 586 BC as most secular archaeologists assume.)
*From that anchor point, Ussher worked backward through the king lists of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]]. See I and II Kings.
*He worked backward further to set the dates-of-reign of King [[Solomon]], and calculated the [[Exodus of Israel]] at 480 years earlier than the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]], which was in Solomon's fourth year.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=I_Kings|chap=6|verses=1}}</ref> This fell in 1012 BC, and so Ussher fixed the Exodus at 1491 BC.
*Based on his interpretation of {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17}}, Ussher then fixed the date of the entry of [[Abraham]] into [[Canaan]]. This was in 1921 BC.
*Ussher here made a key assumption that is in great dispute. We read that Abraham was 75 years old when he embarked into Canaan.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=12|verses=4}}</ref> We also read that [[Terah]] was 70 years old when he "begat" Abraham, [[Nahor]] (the younger), and [[Haran]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=26}}</ref> Ussher's assumption, which added another sixty years to the reckoning of Creation, was this: that Abraham did not embark on his own ''until after Terah had died'' at the age of 205.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=32}}</ref> This would mean that Terah was actually 130 years old, not 70, when Abraham was born--and presumably that Nahor the Younger or Haran was born when Terah was 70. Ussher's sole warrant for this assumption is that the Bible describes Abraham's departure after it describes Terah's "death." But Terah's "death" might be spiritual rather than physical, in that Terah had originally intended to take all his family out of [[Ur]] of the [[Chaldees]] and into Canaan, ''but forgot his purpose'' and grew too accustomed to worldly enticements in the country of Haran. If that is the case, then Abraham might have departed when Terah was still alive--which is what the inventors of the present Hebrew calendar assumed.

*Ussher then backtracked the pedigree of Abraham to [[Arphaxad]], born to [[Shem]] two years after the [[Great Flood]].<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11}}</ref> He therefore concluded that the Great Flood happened in 2349 BC.
*Finally, Ussher backtracked the genealogy of Shem to Adam.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=5}}</ref> He further concluded that Creation must have occurred during the Autumnal [[Equinox]], which in fact is the favorite start of many of the world's [[Calendar|calendars]], ancient and modern. He ''also'' assumed that the ancient Hebrews ''did not'' attempt to synchronize their [[month]]s with the [[moon]] until ''after'' their exile into [[Babylonia]]. He thus calculated the date of creation at October 23, 4004 BC according to the [[Julian calendar]].

James Ussher's calculation was the best-sourced calculation in all of Christendom at the time. Ussher also spoke with authority, and from a position of authority. For those reasons, his dates for various Biblical events appeared in the margins of [[King James Version|King James]] and other Bibles for centuries, until the last quarter of the twentieth century, when publishers abandoned this practice. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date.<ref>Cited in Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/141 Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?], ''Creation'' 25(3):36–40, June 2003.</ref>

Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

Such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

== Geological dating ==

If the [[logical fallacy]] of [[circular reasoning]] is allowed -- making a central (and implausible) assumption about the past to prove timing in the past -- then it is possible to claim an older creation as follows:

* assume that radiometric decay rates have remained constant and are unaffected by environmental changes.<ref>This assumption is known to be false. Tests of [[radiometric dating]] methods have often shown that they do not agree with known ages of rocks that have been seen to form from volcanic eruptions in recent and historic times, and there are also examples of [[radiometric dating]] methods not agreeing with each other.</ref> It is widely known that nuclear decay accelerates during catastrophic and violent events, making it unreliable.
* use [[radiometric dating]] to estimate an age for the crust of the [[Earth]].<ref>Mostly [[atheistic]] scientists arrive at an estimated age of the [[Earth]] of 4.5 [[billion]] (4.5 * 109) years using the above approach. See [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html USGS, ''Geologic Time: Age of the Earth.''] Accessed April 18, 2007. According to the [[Big Bang Theory|Big Bang theory]], the [[universe]] began even earlier, about 13.7 billion years ago. [http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html, ''Age of the Universe'']</ref>

Many scientists and most of the public accept the [[Flood]] and reject the above approach.<ref>For example, see Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf The Creation Answers Book, chapter 4]</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Creation Week]]
* [[Young Earth Creationism]]
* [[Biblical creation account]]

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

User:Heffalump

2008-02-02T16:55:50Z

Heffalump: New page: Here to contribute

Here to contribute