Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Common Core

2014-02-26T23:12:29Z

JSchwartz: ~~~~

==Haphazardly Written==
The intro is nearly entirely very poorly written. An example:
{{cquote|According to The Washington Post, Singapore’s standards were used to develop the Common Core. A ridiculous Common Core test for first graders The Washington Post - October 31, 2013 In Singapore, students begin Grade 1 at age 7 after two years of kindergarten. This is not an argument for starting school at a later age. Canadian students also begin first-grade at age 6. }}
Why the unrelated link in the middle of a section on Singapore? Why talk about when certain nations begin, when this has nothing at all to do with the Common Core, which neither changes nor is affected by this?
{{cquote|But we must recognize, especially given that}}
Why the unended sentence?
{{cquote|There are numerous objections to Common Core from across the political spectrum. Criticisms include:
it is untested, and there is no evidence that it will improve learning or educational results
it adds more costs, which requires more taxes to support it
it imposes a massive federal tracking system for students, like Big Brother on steroids
it establishes more federal (national) control over curriculum, which infringes on local and parental control
it has been imposed without approval by many state legislatures, and without adequate discussion or debate}}
This section, which makes many authoritative statements, has no citations whatsoever. An authoritative rebuttal of CCSS must have authoritative sources.
{{cquote|While common core makes fairly detailed recommendations for mathematics teaching in grades K-8, it does not attempt to set curricula for high school, grades 9-12. Instead, it lists general "categories": Number/quantity, Algebra, Functions, Geometry, Modeling, and Probability/statistics. The document on the subject, here lists the sorts of things that could be expected to be covered in those categories: conics, vectors, matrices, functions in general, exponentials and logarithms, complex numbers, polynomials, and trig functions. These are the usual things that comprise pre-calculus.
The mathematics part of Common Core pays particular attention to the use of proofs in the teaching of geometry, and the need for a uniform presentation of proof concepts between junior-high level and high-school level teaching. See here for an excruciatingly detailed analysis of some proofs about parallelograms and triangles in sections G.CO.10 and G.CO.11 of the Common Core.
Also, see here: "The geometry standards in the CCSS deviate from the usual geometry standards in at least two respects, one big and one small. The small one is that, for the first time, special attention is paid to the need of a proof for the area formula for rectangles when the side lengths are fractions."}}
Why the random digression into mathematics? This could go in a detailed mathematics-related section of the CCSS, but it's pointless here, especially because it adds nothing to the discussion of the positives or negatives of CCSS.
Additionally, the third "here" (http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/Progressions_Geometry.pdf) is 404'd.
{{cquote|Common Core deprives parents and local authorities of their control over education, and instead transfers control to unaccountable organizations and bureaucrats at the national level.
In spring 2013, grassroots and Tea Party opposition has arisen in many locations nationwide to Common Core.}}
Why a lack of discussion of HOW the CCSS deprives people, or WHY the Tea Party opposed it? Deliberating on both of these could only help inform a reader and make them more likely to oppose. In addition, this section, like the much of the rest of the intro, suffers from a lack of references.[[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 18:12, 26 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Common Core

2014-02-26T23:08:17Z

JSchwartz: Intro badly written, man.

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-24T01:51:16Z

JSchwartz: /* Negative Numbers */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

[[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge/Archive1|Archive 1]]

== One problem ==

This is a wonderful article, with many in sites that could drive atheists to the brink of despair. The one issue is "...by 2011 obesity was far more prevalent and harmful than hunger. " I realize that this is an America-centric wiki, but if you look at world numbers, 500 000 000 obese, 925 000 000 without adequate nutrition. Just found this a bit of a slap in the face

:I think you're missing a key word in your comment. I also think there are more than 500 million obese people in the world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:51, 20 February 2012 (EST)

::http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/ These are the 2008 obesity statistics. As for the missing key word, I could not find it, but if you could point out a flaw in my argument, I would be quite happy [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 12:02, 21 February 2012 (EST)

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)
:Like I said below, both light and (say) electrons behave sometimes like waves, and sometimes like particles. In the standard formalism people use, one takes the fields to fundamental for everything: photons, gluons, quarks, electrons, and so on. (This is called quantum field theory, for obvious reasons.) And like Joshua said, is it specifically the visible spectrum, or all EM radiation? Because it's clear that there is nothing special about the visible spectrum. And GUT's refer to the unification of the strong force with the electroweak force. Not light with matter. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 10:18, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

I was thinking it would be a good idea to write an article, or perhaps a subsection to this article, that details knowledge or predictions in the bible that are not yet known to science. What do you think? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 12:46, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:That's a great idea! Please start a subsection or, perhaps better, a new entry as you suggested.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 March 2012 (EST)

::Excellent! I have to finish up a research paper this week so I'll be very busy, but I'll try and draw up a draft for next weekend.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 08:50, 4 March 2012 (EST)

:::I had a look at the page just now and I can't find the section on future knowledge. Am I missing it or should I add one? [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 18:04, 22 February 2014 (EST)

== GUT ==

You state that "Billions of dollars and millions of hours have been wasted by atheists in futile pursuit of a "grand unified theory" for physics. But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter." I had a laugh at this: electromagnetism/light ''was'' unified with another force (the weak force) around 40 years ago...
<br>
And don't tell me you are going to start a "counterexamples to the electroweak theory" page... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:54, 1 March 2012 (EST)
:Maybe you'll get a response. As you can see, I made similar statements a few sections above you. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 19:59, 1 March 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, I noticed that right after I posted mine. Sorry! [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:47, 1 March 2012 (EST)

:::Yeah, and sometimes light acts like particles (e.g., the [[photoelectric effect]]). But a few similarities between light and matter do not negate the fundamental differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 2 March 2012 (EST)

::::And what are the fundamental differences? Everything sometimes acts like particles, and sometimes like waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of a GUT to unite the electroweak theory with the theory of the strong force (quantum chromodynamics)? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 19:43, 6 March 2012 (EST)

:::::Semantic debates are not very interesting. The basic point is clear: light (the entire spectrum) is fundamentally different from matter as illustrated by their creation on different days. Efforts to unify them are a waste of time and money.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::So the point you are making is: light and matter are different, and so light cannot be on equal footing with (say) electrons, right? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 13:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::They have the same [[Creator]], so if one searches hard enough then a few similarities can be found, but fundamentally they were created on different days for different purposes, and are very different.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::And what are the differences? In the formalism one uses in particle physics, both the photons and the electrons are treated with the field as fundamental--the particles are merely quanta of the excited energy spectrum. [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:00, 18 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::If there were no differences, then a unified theory would exist. But it does not. Mass exerts a gravitational force that is fundamentally different from electromagnetism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 20 March 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::Can light be unified with any other force? Like the nuclear forces? [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 14:46, 21 March 2012 (EDT)

:::::::::::I also think you're confusing inertial mass with gravitational mass.... [[User:AndyFrankinson|AndyFrankinson]] 20:03, 2 April 2012 (EDT)

== Last shall be first, and the first shall be last ==

How is this statement hinting to set-theory? Could this explained? And did it hint the LIFO principle of queuing theory? For me this seems to be quite a stretch. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:04, 17 June 2012 (EDT)

== Pi to one significant figure ==

I removed the comment about pi to one significant figure as the verses deal with 10 * pi. I know that 31 to one sig fig is still 30, but the verses are in the order of magnitude 1, not 10, so it would be nonsensical to round 31 to 30. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:54, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

''Can I suggest that you remove the reference to decimal measurement, this is irrelevant to the argument given that pi can be expressed as a fraction.''--[[User:Matthewhammond|Matthewhammond]] 18:28, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

== ... out of no extra material ==
One would think that loafs and fishes are measurable ("''material''") and therefore, that Banach-Tarski isn't applicable... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:08, 12 September 2012 (EDT)
:One would think that if Jesus' extraordinary doings were explainable by scientific means that said doings aren't actually miracles but merely a corollary of Clarke's third law? This, in turn ''could be'' used in a denial of Our Savior's deity. [[User:JuanMotame|JuanMotame]] 16:50, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

:Replying to August, I find his objection to be nitpicky. The analogy with Banach-Tarski is a strong one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

::''Nitpicky''? I start to see this as a compliment...
::Banach-Tarsky relies on the [[Axiom of Choice]] to choose two sets from a ball which are not measurable: there is no way to put a weight to those two sets in any sensible way - thus no material can be chopped up this way. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:04, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Zero ==

I couldn't find any reference to zero in the Bible in the sense of a [[place-value notation]]. Obviously there are many mentions of nothingness, but that is a different topic - and you'll find similar occurrences in virtually every piece of literature. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:03, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly, by your standard the [[Iliad]] contains ''hundreds of references to the concept of zero throughout'':

::θαρσήσας μάλα εἰπὲ θεοπρόπιον ὅ τι οἶσθα:
::οὐ μὰ γὰρ Ἀπόλλωνα Διῒ φίλον, ᾧ τε σὺ Κάλχαν
::εὐχόμενος Δαναοῖσι θεοπροπίας ἀναφαίνεις,
::οὔ τις ἐμεῦ ζῶντος καὶ ἐπὶ χθονὶ δερκομένοιο
::σοὶ κοίλῃς παρὰ νηυσί βαρείας χεῖρας ἐποίσει
::συμπάντων Δαναῶν, οὐδ᾽ ἢν Ἀγαμέμνονα εἴπῃς,
::ὃς νῦν πολλὸν ἄριστος Ἀχαιῶν εὔχεται εἶναι.

:Do you see how [[Achilles]] refers to zero Greeks? Does this mean that [[Homer]] foresaw our modern decimal system? That is absurd. Until you can show at least ''one'' verse in the Bible where there is a reference to zero in the sense of a [[place-value notation]], I'll remove this topic. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::In my opinion it is also incorrect to say that western mathematicians had no concept of zero, it is just that it is not necessary in an additive number system like roman numerals. I forget the exact place, but the Venerable Bede (who lived quite early in the middle ages) uses the word 'nulla'(or something to that effect, my Latin is non-existent) to stand for zero in a list.[[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 09:42, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::The concept of nothing or zero existed by the [[Middle Ages]]. Many credit [[India]] with the discovery of zero/nothing around [[A.D.]] 500, I think.

:::But if Romans had not been so resistant to the [[Bible]] then they would have discovered and used it far sooner. The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible. Indeed, I'll add the insight in one passage about how 0 times a large number is still zero.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::*The Romans were - most of the time - not resistant to the Bible, but ignorant of it: from 753 B.C. until 100 A.D., there was only the Old Testament around, and Judaism is not exactly religion encouraging missionaries...
:::*Bede used ''nulla'' in the early 8th century, the decimal system was introduced by Fibonacci in the 12th century. The inventors were the Hindus which generally didn't know the Bible at all: So was the knowledge of the Bible detrimental to the introduction of zero as a powerful mathematical concept?
:::*Again, please give us a sample of verses were zero occurs in the Bible - that shouldn't be difficult for you, as you claim that ''The importance of zero/nothing is pervasive in the Bible''.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

=== Argument from Numerology ===
''Also, in Matthew 16:26, Jesus points out that after one loses his soul (the equivalent of zero), no multiplication of value can amount to anything: it's still zero. In other words, anything times zero is still zero, an insight the Romans lacked. ''

Aschlafy, you are introducing numerology into scripture! There is no mention of zero in this verse, you put it into it for your convenience!

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26)

Where did you get the idea that the Romans lacked the insight that ''anything times zero is still zero''? Any scholarly source?

And you are not even consistent: On other places you are talking about the concept of infinity - but zero times infinity isn't necessarily zero....
--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:36, 16 September 2012 (EDT)

*My [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&diff=1006985&oldid=1006734 edit] comment got mangled - it should read: ''why zero and not -∞? That's just arbitrary...
*if you try to read mathematics into Matthew 16:26, one way is to say that the soul is of infinite value, therefore its worth more than all existing things. Another way is to say that it is of a very great, but finite value, but worth more than all existing things. A third, more modern way, is to claim that it doesn't make sense to compare the soul and mundane things, i.e., that there is no complete order on the value of everything. But these are all interpretations of this verse, none of which is ''obvious''-

--[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:38, 17 September 2012 (EDT)

:The most straightforward interpretation is that when a man loses his soul, he has nothing (zero).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:18, 26 September 2012 (EDT)
::I'm afraid that is ''straightforward'' only to you - especially the use of the multiplication: when we lose or acquire things, we tend to add their value, not to multiply it. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:25, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

IMO numerological arguments are meaningless, but here is the most "obvious" or "straightforward" rendition of the verse using your "values": lost soul (0) + world (some value x) = x, ergo something. Have you found anyone else who realized that this verse uses the concept of zero? Or is this insight shared by no one else, allowing only you to see this reference to zero?

Such "insights" can be constructed for the Iliad, too! Does this mean that the Greek gods gave us the zero?

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:55, 26 September 2012 (EDT)

== The significance of blood ==

''The Old Testament teaches that the life of all flesh is its blood (Leviticus 17:13-14 (KJV)). Secular science remained ignorant of the properties and circulation of blood until the 17th century A.D.''

That is not correct - the source itself states: ''That is, life depends upon the existence and circulation of blood, '''a truth known empirically''' but not scientifically tested and proved until the 17th century a.d. (cf. Lev 17:11).''

Indeed, the blood circuit couldn't be seen completely before the invention of the microscope...

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 06:36, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== God and Calculus ==

''The Bible emphasizes the importance of limits as a key distinction between this world and God; Calculus consists of relying on limits to derive useful results.''

Where does the Bible do so? The ''"source"'' - [http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_27/27cc_225-239.htm Norie Grace Rivera-Poblete: "''God and Calculus''"], Institute for Christian Teaching Education Department of [[Seventh-day Adventist]], Prepared for the 27th International Faith and Learning Seminar held at Mission, Muak Lek Saraburi, Thailand December 3 – 15, 2000 - gives '''''one ''''' example:
*''"Limit" reminds us of the experience of the Israelites, as they traveled through the wilderness. Most of the adult Israelites who came out from Egypt did not enter the Promised Land except for Caleb and Joshua. The children of Israel "approached" the Promised Land; generally speaking, all of them reached the border. But none of them would have made it were it not for God's limitless love and grace. Even though they disobeyed Him so many times, God still kept His covenant with the Israelites. ''
That's just not convincing. --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:33, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

== The Concept of Infinity ==

''Most thinkers scoffed at the concept of infinity for thousands of years, despite being referenced in the Bible in many ways. See, e.g., Psalm 147:4-6 (God's "understanding is infinte"); Matthew 20:1-14 (parable of the wages for the workers in the vineyard). ''

#Where is the concept of infinity in the parable of the vineyard? Every worker has worked for at least an hour, and everyone gets the same amount of money - its subtext is about the infinite reward we may receive, but the parable itself is certainly finite...
#My Hebrew is worse than my Greek, but to my understanding the Greek idea of infinity/infinities (actual vs. potential) is more sophisticated than the one in the Old Testament. In fact you'll find that in the psalms the same word is used to describe ''the number of the stars'' and God's ''infinite wisdom'': מִסְפָּר (mispar)

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:46, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:The owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers. The parable is illogical only to those who resist the concept of infinity, as non-believers did until mathematicians accepted the concept more than 1500 years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Do you say that the early Christians didn't understand the parable as the generally hadn't a concept of infinity?
::And, pray, how does the ''owner of the vineyard has infinite wealth relative to the workers''? He wasn't even rich as Midas....
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:13, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

''For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?'' (Matthew 16:26) Interesting, how Matthew avoids the term ''infinite''... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Light and Color ==

=== Light and Color ===

''The transfiguration of Jesus is described with remarkable consistency in all three synoptic [[Gospel]]s: in the fullness of light Jesus and his clothing display an intense white, whiter than any bleach could produce. This illustrates what was not discovered and accepted until nearly 1700 years later: that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination (see [[Prism]]).''

The color white seems to be a universal symbol of purity - I fail to see who this is a description ''that white is the combination of other fundamental colors, and the purest white light is formed by a perfectly full combination'' - did Jesus wear a rainbow - coat? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:34, 14 September 2012 (EDT)

:Your first sentence seems to be missing something, and I don't see its relevance anyway. The Bible is not describing a symbol, but an actual event. No, the fullness of light is not a rainbow because the colors are not separated from each other.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

== Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts ==

''atheists are the ones who "mocked" the creationist concept for about 100 years; Christians do not "mock" creationist concepts''

They would mock them - if they didn't see them as ''creationist concepts''! Wegener was mocked by the ''American Association of Petroleum Geologists'' in a conference in the 1920s. Were there only atheists in this association? No, of course not. But there were Christians which supported other theories, partly perhaps as those seemed to be more easily reconcilable with Scripture. Who are we to criticize them for not recognizing Wegener's theory as better fitting into [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]]? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:24, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::Any examples? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:29, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::Are you joking? Perhaps 90% of [[atheistic]] commentary against [[creationist]] concepts is juvenile mockery, with very little logical or scientific substance. This was as true in the [[Scopes Trial]] (1925) as it is today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:39, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::Well, more than 90% of Christian commentary against evolutionary concepts is juvenile mockery, at least on this site (see [[:Category:Satire]]). So this doesn't corroborate your statement ''[[Atheism]] promotes pseudo-intellectual mockery '''in a way that [[Christianity]] does not.''''' --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::::Your link is to far less than 90% of this site. See [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] and [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]] and [[Radiometric Dating]], and numerous other entries. Also, there is not a tradition of [[Christians]] mocking [[atheists]] anything like the converse, which dates back to the [[Passion of Christ]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:17, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
A few points:

1. Conservapedia has a 21 page article on evolution which quotes/cites prominent evolutionists amongst others. The article has over 300 footnotes.

2. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal.

3. The majority of satires were on atheism and not evolutionism. The Bible says that atheists are fools and that honor is not fitting for a fool. The most ardent evolutionists post WWII have been atheists/agnostics. The Conservapedia atheism article is 54 pages long with over 300 footnotes and cites atheists among others.

4. Evolutionists have shown themselves to be deceitful cowards. Deceitful cowards deserve to be mocked. See: [[Atheism and deception]] and [[Atheism and cowardice]] and [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]

5. [[Shockofgod]] loves the satires and is going to do a whole series of weekly videos on the satires of atheism and evolutionism.

I hope that clears things up. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:20, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:Thanks, I think you made my case very well. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:25, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::August, you haven't addressed the fundamental way that [[atheists]] have relied '''''primarily''''' on juvenile mockery against creationism, dating back to the [[Passion of Christ]] as well as statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] during the [[Scopes Trial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:::My point is that the degree of ''juvenile mockery'' of both sides is roughly the same. And were there any atheists present at the [[Passion of Christ]]? I doubt it: there were Romans of various religious beliefs (Rome was quite tolerant) and Jews, but atheist aren't mentioned in the Bible... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:41, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

::::It's easy to compare the statements by [[Clarence Darrow]] against the statements by [[William Jennings Bryan]] during the [[Scopes Trial]]. There's no doubt that Darrow relied on mockery far, far more than Bryan did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:49, 15 September 2012 (EDT)
AugustO, a few more points:

1. God willing, the Evangelical Covenant Church in Germany will spread the [http://creation.com/15 15 questions] that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer in Germany. Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany.

2. One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles.

3. The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles. CWA is the largest women organization in America. Ergo, conservative ladies love my atheism and evolution articles!

4. If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking.

I strongly suspect one of the reasons is that your Protestant denomination church body has a sub-replacement level of births. In 2010, Germany had a 1.39 children per woman which is far below the 2.1 replacement level of births.

All true conservative women love babies.

All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families.

Ergo, your Protestant church body is likely filled with liberal men and women!

5. Adolf Hitler was a German evolutionary racist and most of the evolutionists German public were enthusiastic followers of him and he spoke before enthusiastic crowds. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 15 September 2012 (EDT)

:#''Unlike the Protestant denomination that you belong to, they are growing in Germany. '' Indeed, and extrapolating the current trends this Germany-wide operating church will have as many members as my church which is restricted mainly to the area of Northern Hesse in just 100 - 150 years.
:#''One of the largest conservative Christian ministries in the world linked to my atheism and evolution articles. '' Which one? I had troubles to find this link
:#''The [[Concerned Women of America]] (CWA) website links to my atheism and evolution articles.'' Indeed, it does - sort of: You have to look very hard to find this link. Using the on-site search option, Conservapedia is mentioned once in a footnote in the article [http://www.cwfa.org/familyvoice/2011-02/FamilyVoiceInsight_February2011.pdf Cutting the Cord - The Case for Defunding Planned Parenthood] from Feb 2011. However the link is to [[Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood's Teen Website Gets It Barred from California High School]] and not [[Atheism]] or [[Evolution]]. But there is [http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=15240&department=CFI&categoryid=misc this article] by Matt Barber which praises Conservapedia and mentions its articles on ''on topics ranging from atheism, to homosexuality, to the theory of evolution and so on. '' Sadly this article is quite dated - and nothing links to it on the CWA website.
:#''If memory serves, you indicated that the German Protestant denomination, which has some its member churches give homosexual "couple" "blessings", is shrinking. '' and the population of Germany is shrinking, too. What has this to do with the topic at hand? Is the position of the religious bodies in [[Malaysia]] or [[Indonesia]] more valid as their populations are growing? ''All true able bodied conservative Protestant married men love their wives and are hard workers with the Protestant work ethic. They are able to have big families. '' And many choose not to have big families, but only one to three children. Is this wrong? How many brothers and sisters do you have? How big a family are you planning to have when you reach maturity?
:#Adolf Hitler spoke unfortunately often before crowds in which you would find only few atheists, Nordics, but an overwhelming number of Christians who he laid astray - but Christians non the less. If his party had relied only on atheists it would have amassed the 5.3 million members it had in 1939...

== Growing obesity problem in the world plus obesity problem in the atheist population ==

''This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God--'' 2 Timothy 3:1-4

While Paul enumerates many sins of men in the end times, gaining weight isn't mentioned explicitly. Reading these verses I don't get the image that epidemic obesity is a sign of the end times. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:52, 24 September 2012 (EDT)
::Are you claiming that hedonism is not a major cause for obesity? If so, why? Is the Christian conservative Chuck Norris wrong about obesity primarily being caused by hedonism? See: [[Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity]] If so, why? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:29, 24 September 2012 (EDT)

== Seriously disappointed... ==

@Aschlafly. Unfortunately, I found your last edit to this article to be completely absurd. You added the following: "''A storm developed over the water while Jesus slept (i.e., chaos develops when God is not observing), and it was Jesus's awaking to observe it that calmed the storm.''"

"(...when God is not observing)"!? What sort of arrogant foolishness of man is this? The Almighty God is [[omnipotent]] and omnipresent in His revealed form! There is NOTHING that happens without His observation! Your edit seems to deny the [[Holy Trinity]]. Yet, even worse, casts Jesus down to the level of Fallen Man (who can be easily mistaken upon awakening from sleep). I hope you can find my knee-jerk reaction to be proven wrong. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 05:36, 1 February 2013 (EST)

== when it quotes the devil, which is the word for chaos ==

I don't know a thing about quantum mechanics but I know "devil" is not the word for "chaos". It comes from "diabalos", which is Greek for "slanderer". Satan certainly works to create chaos and turmoil in our lives but that is not what devil means. I would try to make your edit better without this part of the statement but I don't know anything about the science you are talking about. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:58, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:We have an entry on [[devil]], and I should have linked to it. My Merriam Webster Collegiate's dictionary says its first etymological meaning is "to throw across."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:08, 28 February 2013 (EST)
::Interesting definition. I see that from a Greek concordance that those words are there in the definition in English but it looks like your translation is pretty loose. http://biblesuite.com/greek/1228.htm The Biblical use means "slander" and never "chaos" as far as I can tell looking at Strong's. Nate. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 23:55, 28 February 2013 (EST)

:::Strong's and older translations tend to prefer philosophical meanings of words, when today a more scientific connotation can be more informative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 1 March 2013 (EST)
::::But why do you say that? The concordance tracks the meaning of the Greek word as it is used in the Bible. There is no scientific connotation. Diabolos means "slanderer". That is what Satan is! The Defamer. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:53, 1 March 2013 (EST)

:::::You raise an interesting issue. I'll think about this further and do some more research.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 1 March 2013 (EST)

::::::διαβάλλω literally means this: "to throw across." Its etymology is clear, being a combination of διά (meaning through or between) and βάλλω (which means "to throw"). Strong's is not precise enough here, and this illustrates the benefits of looking again at how words are being translated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:06, 1 March 2013 (EST)

Andrew Schlafly, you have a history [[Talk:Idou|of inventing new meanings and translations when it pleases you]]. If you take out your [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B2%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89la=greek#lexicon Liddell-Scott], you'll find that '''neither διάβόλος nor διαβάλλω have anything to do with chaos or disorder'''. Yes, διαβάλλω is contracted from διά and βάλλω and it means "to throw or carry over or across", but it is literally used to describe a move in wrestling or "to pass over, cross". So it is generally used to describe the '''throw of a single item''', e.g. your opponent when wrestling or yourself (used reflexively as "to cross") - that's not how one creates chaos". Figuratively, it means "to attack a man's character, calumniate", "to speak or state slanderously", "deceive by false accounts", etc. To stress my (and Liddell's and Scott's point): '''διαβάλλω does not mean ''to create chaos'', it has nothing to do with disorder.''' διάβόλος is a slanderer, '''διάβόλος doesn't mean creator of chaos.''' There is no evidence that it is even used literally in the sense of someone passing, etc.! As with ἰδού, I doubt that you have a shred of evidence (and even less a scholarly source) to redefine nearly 3000 years of usage of this words... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:20, 3 March 2013 (EST)

This all seems to be rather missing the point. If Luke 4.6 is a reference to uncertainty at the quantum level, then it is most certainly a figurative reference. But isn't the viewpoint of this blog that the Bible should be interpreted literally? --[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 10:13, 9 May 2013 (EDT)
==Hubris of Man==
I find [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=1064278&oldid=1064268 this edit] to be rather troubling. It is important to note that there are many acts of devine intervention or power described in the Bible, that will always be beyond human technology. While it is nice to observe that some items described in the Bible foresaw subsequent technological developments, the Bible does not predict that '''all''' things described in it will ultimately become possible through advances in human technology. Nor is it valid to re-translate the Bible to add technological predictions. Finally, if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food, as a matter of mathematics and logic, a point will be reached in the future when the population will exceed the ability of the earth to feed it. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, just mathematics. While birth control and the AIDS epidemic have trimmed the population growth curve, the problem exists over the very long term. Let's show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. 14:16, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

:The fallacy is in the "if": "if the human population of the earth grows faster than the ability to produce food." This "if" has never occurred and never would occur, because man has always been able to produce more than he needs to consume.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:02, 18 August 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for your response. First, Robert Malthus wrote ''An Essay on the Principle of Population'' (1798), one of the earliest and most influential books on population. He correctly predicted exponential population growth. People feared that eventually, the maximum ability of the Earth to sustain a population would be reached. Admittedly, population growth has been tempered due to birth control and the AIDS epidemic, but at some point growth will accelerate and one can foresee the limit eventually being reached even with further technological advances. I don't see the Bible contradicting that result, and the article does not present a fair picture of the topic. Second, the Bible describes many miraculous things that were beyond human technology at the time it was written. Some could inspire technological advances, but other miracles described in the Bible will always be beyond human technology (e.g., the parting of the Red Sea.) I believe the article should show some humility and acknowledge the limitations of human technology. Man should not aspire to hold all of the powers of God. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 20:21, 18 August 2013 (EDT)

==Distance of Oldest Star to Earth==
How can the source be trusted? It says the oldest star is 13.7 billion years old and implies that stars have been observed farther away, so this contradicts the article's assertion that creation occurred 6,000 years ago. How can the distance of the oldest star be taken as fact but other inconvenient facts be ignored? --[[User:Randall7|Randall7]] 17:10, 22 February 2014 (EST)

:Articles are cited here for their facts, not for any additional liberal speculation or spin that is included. There is no atheistic reason to claim 6,000 light-years away if it were not true. The confirmation of the [[Bible]] by a scientific culture that tends to be atheistic in outlook is remarkable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 22 February 2014 (EST)

::Thanks for rephrasing that for me. [[User:BarrySM|BarrySM]] 10:28, 23 February 2014 (EST)

:::In all seriousness, though... The article is talking about the ''oldest'' star, not the ''farthest'' star. If we were citing it to mean that ''no'' star is farther than 6,000 light-years, then the source simply doesn't hold up. And if the source is not being cited for that reason, then the statement has no grounds. Could you further clarify, please? [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:48, 23 February 2014 (EST)

== Negative Numbers ==

Sorry for my misunderstanding, but how do any of the Bible passages cited provide examples of negative numbers, especially within multiplication? If we could provide that citation in-article, it would also improve the quality. [[User:JSchwartz|JSchwartz]] 20:51, 23 February 2014 (EST)

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2014-02-24T01:48:29Z

JSchwartz: /* Distance of Oldest Star to Earth */