Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikiproject:News

2009-10-09T15:34:00Z

Jdstarrett: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.
{{Template:WikiProjectNews}}
==Project leaders==
Project leaders are responsible for supervising the project. Some of their responsibilities include:
#Posting wanted page links to the news page.
#Archiving completed wanted pages.
#Recruiting new members to the project.
#Encouraging current members to contribute and follow the project guidelines.
#Suggest improvements to the project.
*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] began this project on August 8, 2008.
*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) (promoted to admin on 1/1/09).

==Admins==
Admins have the rights to add news and wikify wanted pages to the Main page.
*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:06, 28 December 2008 (EST) (promoted 1/1/09)
*[[User:TK|TK]]
*[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]]

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

*[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008
*-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]][[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 09:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 08:23, 19 November 2008 (EST).
*[[User:BradJohnson|Brad Johnson]] [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 15:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Conservapedia1|Conservapedia1]] 00:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
*----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:18, 6 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:08, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
*--[[User:JewishConservative|JewishConservative]] 22:39, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

==Subprojects==

====Editing the "In the News" section====
If you're an administrator, you can edit the news section. Here's how to do it:
#On the Main Page, there is an edit link to the right of "In the News".
#Click the edit link, and you will be editing "Template:Mainpageright (section)".
#Enter a post below where it says "PAGE CONTENT BEGINS BELOW THIS LINE".
#You can put a return and ---- to separate the posts.
#Add the news posting.
#Put something in the edit summary and click the preview button to see how it looks.
#Click "Save page" and view your addition on the Main Page.

===Today in History===
If you have a suggestion for "Today in History", post it [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Today in History|here]]. Your article will be posted on the Main Page on the corresponding day.

===Wanted Pages===
This is a very important part of this project. Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted page]] for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page|Wanted Pages]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 Contributors
! Number of pages ''as of 2/23/09''
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>59</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>57</center>
|}

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion]]
[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Wikiproject:News

2009-10-09T15:28:30Z

Jdstarrett: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject:News. We are a project trying to improve both the "In the News" section and the "Previous Breaking News" articles by subject. The immediate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to allow editors to review news articles they might have missed while away from the site. The ultimate purpose of the "Previous Breaking News" is to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.
{{Template:WikiProjectNews}}
==Project leaders==
Project leaders are responsible for supervising the project. Some of their responsibilities include:
#Posting wanted page links to the news page.
#Archiving completed wanted pages.
#Recruiting new members to the project.
#Encouraging current members to contribute and follow the project guidelines.
#Suggest improvements to the project.
*[[User:DeanS|DeanS]] began this project on August 8, 2008.
*[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:13, 12 August 2008 (EDT) (promoted to admin on 1/1/09).

==Admins==
Admins have the rights to add news and wikify wanted pages to the Main page.
*[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:06, 28 December 2008 (EST) (promoted 1/1/09)
*[[User:TK|TK]]
*[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]]

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>.

<nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki>
*[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 22:58, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:12, 12 August 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008
*-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]][[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 09:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Etc|Etc]] 16:04, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:12, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 20:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 08:23, 19 November 2008 (EST).
*[[User:BradJohnson|Brad Johnson]] [[User:BradJohnson|BradJohnson]] 15:34, 25 November 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Conservapedia1|Conservapedia1]] 00:19, 4 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:27, 8 December 2008 (EST)
*----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
*[[User:Zerlock|Zerlock]] 21:35, 28 January 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:18, 6 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:23, 23 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 22:34, 26 February 2009 (EST)
*[[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:08, 20 March 2009 (EDT)
*--[[User:JewishConservative|JewishConservative]] 22:39, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

==Subprojects==

====Editing the "In the News" section====
If you're an administrator, you can edit the news section. Here's how to do it:
#On the Main Page, there is an edit link to the right of "In the News".
#Click the edit link, and you will be editing "Template:Mainpageright (section)".
#Enter a post below where it says "PAGE CONTENT BEGINS BELOW THIS LINE".
#You can put a return and ---- to separate the posts.
#Add the news posting.
#Put something in the edit summary and click the preview button to see how it looks.
#Click "Save page" and view your addition on the Main Page.

===Today in History===
If you have a suggestion for "Today in History", post it [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Today in History|here]]. Your article will be posted on the Main Page on the corresponding day.

===Wanted Pages===
This is a very important part of this project. Some of the news articles posted on the Main page need new articles created on Conservapedia. If you create a [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted page|wanted page]] for a news article, it will be wikilinked on the Main Page.

====Top three contributors ([[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page|Wanted Pages]])====

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Top 3 Contributors
! Number of pages ''as of 2/23/09''
|-
| [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]
| <center>237</center>
|-
| [[User:Jpatt|Jp]]
| <center>59</center>
|-
| [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]]
| <center>57</center>
|}

===Previous Breaking News===
This subsection is for updates to the [[Wikiproject:News/Previous Breaking News|Previous Breaking News]] by Subjects. The ultimate purpose is to use the previous news articles to update the corresponding Conservapedia articles.

==See also==
*[[Wikiproject:Religion]]
[[Category:Wikiprojects]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-08T03:00:04Z

Jdstarrett: /* Treading dangerous ground */ adding a comment

==Liberal Rants Against Project==

Editing the Bible to insert your own political agenda is blasphemous, and no true Christian would be presumptous and arrogant enough to take part in this project. And saying this does not make me a "liberal" or a "vandal", it makes me a Christian and someone objective enough to see phonies like the people on here for what you are. Usurpers and false Christians.
[[User:GregHarris|GregHarris]] 12:23, 7 October 2009(EDT)

:Greg, many now-established Bible translations throughout history have met similar opposition. No one here is trying to "insert a political agenda" - the objective is to clarify (not obscure or distort) the intended meaning, compensating for words that have shifted and making full use of new terms that have become available. If you think that there are flaws in our efforts, about which we remain humble, please point them out and suggest improvements.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:25, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Here is a partial list of the translators considered liberal by this project:

* Dr. Boyce Blackwelder. Anderson College, Anderson, Indiana.
* Dr. E. M. Blaiklock. Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Auckland, Titirangi, Auckland, New Zealand.
* Dr. James L. Boyer. Professor Emeritus of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. John A. Burns. Academic Dean, Luther Rice Seminary, Jacksonville, Florida.
* William J. Cameron. Principal Emeritus, Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh, Scotland.
* Dr. A. Glenn Campbell. Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Greek, and Theology, Montana Institute of the Bible, Ottawa, Kansas.
* Dr. Gary C. Cohen. Lecturer, Miami Christian College, Miami, Florida.
* Dr. Huber L. Drumwright. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. William K. Eichhorst. President of Academic Affairs, Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary, Otterburne, Manitoba, Canada.
* Dr. Virtus E. Gideon. Professor of New Testament and Greek, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.
* Dr. Robert L. Hendren. Minister, Donelson Church of Christ, Nashville, Tennessee.
* Dr. Robert G. Hoerber. Professor of Exegetical Theology, Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.
* Dr. Ronald Jones. Associate Professor, Victory Tabernacle Baptist Church, Norfolk, Virginia.
* Dr. Charles R. Smith. Professor of Christian Theology and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.

Does this site have any "translators" who have degrees from "seminaries" that aren't unaccredited bible colleges? No please, before I get a snarky reply, Union Theological Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Drew Divinity are serious, accredited seminaries. Miami Christian College is not. The Montana Institute of the Bible does not exactly have an international reputation for cutting-edge biblical scholarship. And before I get the second snarky reply, I teach at a private Baptist university that takes academic rigor and scholarship seriously. Seriously enough to where no one here would attempt to "translate" the KJV. Either work with the original Greek and Hebrew or don't waste time with this.

: We welcome the "experts" from the liberal schools you list. We welcome your contributions. But I'm not hopeful. The reality is that the biggest source of translation error is political bias, and you're probably as liberal as your fellow teachers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

* Dr. John A. Sproule. Associate Professor of New Testament and Greek, Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana.
* Dr. Harry A. Sturz. Professor Emeritus of Greek, Biola College, La Mirada, California.
* Dr. Joseph S. Wang. Professor of New Testament, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.
* Dr. Phillip R. Williams. Registrar, Professor of New Testament, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington.
* Dr. A. Skevington Wood. Principal, Cliff College, Calver, Sheffield, England.
* Dr. Arthur L. Farstad. New Testament Editor, Dallas, Texas.
* Dr. Lewis A. Foster. Professor of New Testament, Cincinnati Seminary, Cincinnati, Ohio.

:: I bet over 80% of the above list vote for [[Obama]] for President. That's their right, but let's not pretend they don't have liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Sir, you have born false witness against your neighbor! Concordia Seminary and its faculty are most assuredly NOT liberal! What's more, I take exception to your whole notion of a "liberal" Bible. I know both Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, and can tell you that the ESV is a very accurate translation. If you stand accused by Scripture, you are wrong! Period. End of story. You should not commit the sin of eisegesis in order to further your goals. That is, unless you're just pulling a fast one on all of us... [[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:56, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::: Then it's a very good thing he didn't, isn't it? He said 80%, not 100%. What is more, if you actually READ the page instead of jumping into the talk page to sling accusations, you'd know exactly what issues we take with the ESV and other translations. Instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to this project, try to stay open-minded. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
No, that is exactly what you are doing. I'm a proud Christian Conservative, but this is ridiculous. Replacing "rich" with "miserly"? "Kill" with "murder"? How you switch God's words like this? You don't know he meant miserly over rich. And replacing "liberal" with "generous" just because you don't want to mention them? Again, I think they're as stupid as anyone, but it's obvious your just promoting your own political agenda at the cost of God's word. How can you call yourselves Christians and partake in this blasphemy. [[User:Darmientie|Darmientie]] 17:27, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:Darmientie, you complain like a liberal and yet claim to be a "proud Christian Conservative." Guess what: conservatives don't capitalize the "C" in "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sick of being accused of blasphemy, so let me re-iterate: we aren't CHANGING the bible. What you've read are translations; this is simply another one. We are attempting to give the best possible meanings for the words used in the originals; a CONSEQUENCE of this is that the translation we produce is Conservative, because the BIBLE IS CONSERVATIVE. The original Greek doesn't call a child "it," the original texts don't have the adulteress story. By fixing these translating errors, we produce a Bible which is both accurate and conservative. Got it? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:36, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I'm not reading translations, sir, I am reading Greek. In Greek, "paidion," or "child" is neuter. In other words, the Bible, God's Holy Word in its original form, does call a child "it." You have no knowledge of the scriptures, or the power therein! You are an eisegete, and a heretic, and you ought to keep your mouth shut on matters of which you have no knowledge![[User:VoxLutheri|VoxLutheri]] 20:59, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, I'm confused. If there are inconsistencies between the Bible and conservative doctrine, and if it is important for the two to be in harmony, shouldn't it be the doctrine that gets revised, not the Bible? Altering religious texts in furtherance of political goals (rather than merely updating archaic language) is kind of disturbing. Of course, this has happened many times over the history of the Bible, but it's still disturbing.

:You're not confused and you know it. This has nothing to do with "harmonizing" the Bible with conservative "doctrine." The project is explained quite clearly on the page, and on this talk page. The fact that you call conservative reasoning and logic "doctrine" just demonstrates that you don't understand conservatism and don't understand what we're trying to do here. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:15, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project? --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:48, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: Let's also please consider at least the chapter in its entirety when attempting to criticize the project. The verse prior to the one you reference, Revelation 22:18, gives consequences for adding to the "words of the book". I find it especially interesting that you use quotation marks when referring to the "words of the book"... perhaps you're aware that most translations phrase these two verses in such a way that it's very clear the book referenced is the book of revelations, not the bible as a whole? While I agree with the need for caution, and am actually somewhat affronted by the hubris of this project (or any translation of the bible, period), I dislike it when the bible is misquoted as a scare tactic. [[User:Downkey|Downkey]]

Let's be clear. This is not a Bible ''translation'' at all. It is merely a re-wording of the KJV. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 14:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: No, it's more than that. We consult the Greek sometimes and benefit from other guidelines in [[Conservative Bible Project]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:28, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Sometimes. Wow! Impressive! [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::Language is never 100% precise. Sometimes it is obvious what was meant, despite the inartful articulation provided by the best terminology available. Mark 6:22 has an example of this, and we improved on the Greek word for "girl". See [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:31, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::The trouble with that example is, we already ''know'' what "κορασιων" means — it means "little girl", the diminutive of the bog-standard Greek word for girl, κοραι. And we know that because people used it on funerary inscriptions (among others) to describe their dead daughters, who they (presumably) didn't want to call temptresses. Ancient Greek had a rich, complex vocabulary, including a complete vocabulary of sexual terms — they had words for temptress, slut, prostitute, dancer, etc. The author of the Gospel of Mark chose to use the word that unequivocally means "little girl" instead of one of the many less savory words he had available, and yet you think you know better what he ''meant'' to say? That's not creating an unbiased translation — that's shoehorning your own belief structure into the Bible. Does that honor God? --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 20:41, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::Fine, κορασιων means "little girl," but that obviously does not fit the context of the story. What is missing from your analysis is that Mark himself was a young boy at the time also. The underlying event was almost certainly a provocative dance by a young woman, and the best translation should reflect the obvious truth. Fisherman Mark may not have been familiar with the "rich, complex" Greek vocabulary to which you allude, and we're not about to change the Greek term Mark used. But let the finest English be used to convey the likely meaning accurately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Obvious? Seems to me you're injecting the meanings ''you'' want based on ''your'' ideas about what the text ''should'' say. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:13, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: I have an open mind about this. There is a different between "original intent," which is what we've suggested, and "textualism", which seems to be what you want (or you may simply be criticizing this project for political reasons). I tend to think "original intent" is a better approach, but welcome other comments and suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:26, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::How is "original intent" determined? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 10:58, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::: The same way as with anything else: looking at the text in context and as informed by the thinking of the authors. Most people interpret the Constitution the same way. This is particularly important when powerful new concepts go beyond the abilities of the existing language.

::::::: 99% of the time the text itself is clear and definitive, but intent matters for that other 1%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:09, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

Outside of the text itself, what evidence do we have of “the thinking of the authors”? One huge difference between biblical and constitutional hermeneutics is that we know who the authors of the Constitution were and we can consult their other writings for guidance in determining their intentions. And are you suggesting that the Bible’s authors had “powerful new concepts” that they were unable to express in their languages? How can we know what those concepts were if the long-dead authors could not convey them to us? Is it even possible to have a concept that cannot be expressed in language? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:12, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:We don't need "other writings" to determine original intent. Context and logic are more useful. I gave you the specific example of this that we have already encountered: Mark 6:22, where we improved on the Greek word for "girl". You wouldn't address it.

:The bestselling Bible today, the [[NIV]], is a thought-for-thought translation that inherently relies on intent as well as text.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::I don't see how your translation of the Greek of Mark 6:22 is an improvement. The case for that has not been convincingly made. Thought-for-thought translation is not equivalent to a hermeneutic objective of recovering original intent. And you have not addressed most of my questions to you. [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 22:46, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

I, also, question the need for an "improvement" in the translation of Mark 6:22. If you took the verse separately, out of context, then maybe the clarification is needed, but if you read the verse in the context it is written in, then the clarification is not needed at all. The actions of the "damsel" or "girl" show what type of person she is and her role in the story being related. I think that questioning the word usage of the original authors that God inspired to write His Word is stepping over the bounds of a faithful translation. --[[User:JF1971|JF1971]] 00:29, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

:I don't speak for CP officially, so perhaps take my response with a grain of salt. I'd say that this ''is'' really a "correction of a mistranslation", though the KJV is not so much a mistranslation as it is a very dated translation. For many verses we retain the original of the KJV and merely rephrase sentences to fit more modern syntax. In cases where new words developed since the publication of the KJV more precisely capture the meaning of passages, we use those words. There are also aspects of new scholarship, though most of them admittedly originate outside the project itself. For example, the retranslation omits the adulteress story, which is now widely accepted as being a later addition to the Bible.

:It is important to understand that the retranslation is in no way a new translation ''based on a political agenda''. It is rather a new translation whose primary aim is precisely to ''remove the influence that political agendas have had on previous translations'', and to update certain passages to use new vocabulary that more effectively captures their meaning. If this translation is more conservative than others, that is a result of a) its attempt to purge politically-motivated changes to the text and b) the appearance of [[Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words|powerful new conservative insights]] that make possible better translation of certain ideas which are clearly in the original text. I believe that if there is ever a situation where a new liberal word would provide a superior translation, we will employ it without hesitation: however, this will be relatively infrequent because of the generally [[Essay:Conservapedia's_Law|superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV]]. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:04, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::Very well put, Mark. I agree and you said it better than I might have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: Just to make sure I understand- this is not a translation based on a political agenda, it just happens to be undertaken by people who recognize the "superior nature of conservative insights since the publication of the KJV". Here's my concern: as articulated in the project page, one of the source of errors in current translations can be addressed by updating the language to convey "new concepts of Christianity". My question is: from whence spring these new concepts of Christianity? What is the source? From what authority did these new concepts arise?

:::: The "new" refers to the time of Christ. The source is Christ. I'll clarify that on the project page. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: OK, let me see if I understand you --
1. The KJV has a liberal bias? How so?
2. People who cannot read Greek are going to retranslate the Bible to make something superior to the KJV
3. You are going to use "conservative language" yet there is no political motivation?
4. You cite the "conservapedia law" which is no law at all, merely wishful thinking with no evidence to back it up, as a motivating force for the project?

I think you are overreaching and that this will not end well. Still, if you are going through with it, may God guide you.

[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 20:57, 7 October 2009 (MST)

== CBP in blogs ==
Mr. Schlafly -- it appears that a number of mostly liberal blogs have carried pieces about the retranslation project within the last couple days. We have already seen a number of new posts questioning the basis of this project, and I expect that more are to come. I posted my own response to one of them above, but I'm hesitant to be perceived as speaking for the project. Would you prefer that we leave such responses to you, or is it OK if other editors post first responses and let you add your thoughts later? --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Please do respond without worrying about me. I have an open mind and am learning from your responses.

:Note that liberals will sometimes make arguments they do not accept themselves in order to try to deter Christians or conservatives or others. For example, one liberal insisted here that we should shut down this site on Sundays as the Sabbath, a viewpoint he did not accept himself but perhaps thought it would disrupt us.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Names of God ==

The original Hebrew text of much of the Bible uses multiple terms for God. For example, Genesis 1:1 uses the term "Elohim" while Genesis 3:14 uses the Tetragrammatron (YHVH/JHWH/Yahweh/Jehovah whatever your prefered term is). Sometimes both names are used together. Thus, when a translation uses "God" "Lord God" "Lord" and other terms they are reflecting actual distinctions in the original text. Changing these all to Lord will make for inaccurate translation. The use of multiple such terms is not "liberal" simply textually accurate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for your insight, Joshua. I have an open mind about it. But the use of different Hebrew words does not automatically imply that different English words are the best translations.

:I'm curious, Joshua: are you drawing upon childhood knowledge for your insight? As you can see on the liberal blogs, evolutionists both hate the Bible and are remarkably ignorant about it. Once someone buys into evolution, he typically refuses to learns anything about the Bible again, despite its undisputed role as the most influential book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Childhoold knowledge. Anyone who reads the Bible in the original Hebrew learns this as one of the first things about the text. I disagree with your claims about the Bible, "evolutionists" and "liberal blogs" but that's an argument that would be a bit off topic. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:24, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I predicted that perfectly, didn't I? Lucky guess on my part? Nope. Show me an evolutionist, and I'll show you someone who thinks of himself as well-read and yet never, ever reads the Bible. The correlation between belief in evolution and avoidance of the Bible (despite claiming to be well-read) is nearly a perfect 100%. Indeed, the correlation is so perfect that one could almost define an evolutionist as an educated person who never reads the Bible. Indeed, I'll add that to the entry here.

::: If evolution were not simply an anti-religious belief system, then that correlation would not be so high. The correlation is nowhere near that high for other scientific theories, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::: Not a lucky guess since again like most good little Jewish boys I started studying the text from a young age. As for not reading the Bible, I'm scheduled to give the student sermon three weeks from now at Friday night services in three weeks (the corresponding section for that week is the story of Noah) and I'm currently in the process of brushing up on the section dealing with the offerings for [[Sukkot]] (in Numbers 29) since it is thematically relevant (being the middle of the holiday). In any event, the relevant point I was trying to make was about the names. That seems to have been done. (Incidentally, if you want a good resource for looking at various versions of the Biblical texts, http://unbound.biola.edu/ is really helpful). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:11, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::::: Joshua, above you said you were drawing on your childhood knowledge, but now seem to imply (without saying so) that you do currently read from a few older passages in the Bible. If so, you are unlike 99% of evolutionists, who avoid the Bible like the plague and even discourage others from reading it. Indeed, the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today. No person ignorant of it (as most evolutionists are) can be considered well-read or learned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Andy, what about Confucian scholars? Can they, born in a non-western society, help that they have not had the same exposure to the Bible that you have? What you mean by "well-read" and "learned" is actually a reflection on what you consider worth reading. [[User:4m4z1ng|4m4z1ng]] 10:32, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Mr Schlafly, you asserted that, "the defining view of an evolutionist is his disdain for the Bible, despite its indisputable role as the most influential book, both in history and today". With all due respect for your own personal opinions, Mr. Schlafly, this is a sweeping and really unfounded generalization that I feel is detrimental to the nature of the discussion here. I personally am a devout Catholic, and yet I firmly believe in the theory of evolution. In fact, the Catholic Church has accepted the theory of Evolution as an acceptable belief, so long as the idea of God as a prime mover is incorporated. To say that being an evolutionist automatically constitutes an individual who outwardly and totally rejects not just the Bible's value in a religious sense but also in a cultural and historical sense is a truly absurd and careless assumption. Indeed, I have had a great deal of friends and professors whom I have discussed the subject with, and even the most staunch atheists have generally agreed with the idea that the Bible is one of, if not the most historically and culturally significant text ever written. The way you attempt to make individuals who disagree with your own viewpoint seem like philistines is not just ignorant in its own right, it is downright childish. When you and others make broad-stroked stereotypes about the intellectual capacity of a large group of individuals, it only serves to harm your own ethos as an individual with an opinion to share. This has the potential to be a intelligent, reasonable forum for informed discussion of the issue from all viewpoints, but such immature generalizations prevent this page from achieving this potential. I hope that in the future, we can be more civil in discussion on this page, because many individuals are making intelligent points on both sides of the argument without resorting to political pandering. -- [[User:Pnino|Pnino]] 20:24, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Pnino, you say "with all due respect," but you don't sound very respectful. You insult him, calling him childish and ignorant, and then advocate civil discussion. Feel free to take your name calling and hypocrisy elsewhere. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:49, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== I don't get the criticisms of this project ==

Where were these critics when "the Message" "translation" came out? Where were they when the NIV people announced a new, more liberal version in the works? The double-standard is obvious. A liberal version of the Bible? "Ho-hum." Conservative version? "WHAT??? YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! WHAT A JOKE!!!" [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 18:00, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:You're right. The number one reason why most people are [[liberal]]s is so that they can cling to a [[double standard]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:16, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

::These people were silent, of course, when others created a "gender-neutral" Bible, a "green" Bible, and a "gay and lesbian" Bible (I kid you not). No problem with those versions. Evangelicals recently complained about the proposed TNIV, but were either ignored or ridiculed for their objections. It is, of course, because these people agree with those versions. They have no issue with people on their side of the political, social and moral spectrum creating those Bibles. People have been creating liberalized Bibles for decades, possibly even centuries, but the minute someone proposes a conservative Bible, the left blows their collective top. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:40, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

==Footnotes and commentary==
In deference to JoshuaZ, I suggest the use of a footnotes feature at the bottom of each article, describing certain words, their origins in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, their meanings, etc, as well as a commentary feature. This information should be specific to each chapter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

== Remove references to wine or other alcohol ==

Every sane person knows that drinking alcohol is a sin. I propose we remove all references to alcohol from the Bible. As both liberal and conservative historians will tell you, water in ancient times was often very dirty and contaminated. That is why Jesus turned water into wine--to make the water safe to drink. Liberals take it too far and suggest that Jesus might have been a drunk!!

http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/christianity/4759-jesus-drunk-glutton.html

I suggest we clean up this liberal madness and remove all references of wine or other alcohol from our translation. I also suggest getting rid of all instances where god directly kills or commands others to kill. A just god which, created all life, would not extinguish it so blatantly.

Thank you.

: Interesting point about wine being used as an alternative to dirty water, but your recommendation obviously goes way overboard. We're not rewriting the substance of the Bible here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

If drinking is a sin, then why is it that when Noah gets drunk after the flood, Canaan (who didn't even have anything to do with the ordeal) was cursed into slavery cause Ham looked upon the nakedness?

:Noah was a sinner. It's not rocket science. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 12:45, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

==Minor contention on Commandment X==
As someone with a love for the meaning and sounds of language and what it can be used for, and how good words claim the listener, I must take issue with taking Commandment X as a flat rule. I agree that empty words don't add anything, but sometimes an extra word or two can add a lot. To use an example close at hand (and even in the Commandment!), 'Lord God'. It'd get stale if it were used completely in place of ''Lord'', but (to me at least) ''Lord God'' strikes me as a form of reference suitable for powerful and important moments. The Lord (or if you prefer the other form of address, God) listens to your prayers and cares for your soul, but the Lord God is about to deliver the Word unto you, and you'd better pay attention. Also, people are more likely to put a little more formality in addressing God if it's important. It's a matter of the right tone for the right occasion, and the Bible does indeed contain a lot of occasion, and therefore deserves to be translated with befitting tone to convey its events and messages more powerfully in the mind of the reader. Sometimes a word or two makes the difference there. [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 22:53, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

: Your point is well-taken, but it is also worth avoiding senseless repetition. Let's face it: soundbites are decreasing and conciseness is valued.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 6 October 2009 (EDT)

:: Definitely avoid repetition. For the Lord/Lord God example, I'd use it when God is, well, showing people who they must listen to, or when people are beseeching/praying. Context, it all depends on context... [[User:Acm2|Acm2]] 00:04, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::: I'm open to your suggestions, and have already learned from them. Please feel free to translate some phrases as others have. Several of us are currently working on [[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]], and we're about half finished.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Should slavery be translated differently? ==

Is there another term for slavery that accurately describes what Biblical slavery was, without the pervasive racism and transatlantic slave trade?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:44, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:I don't know of another term at this point. St. Perpetua was the slave owner of St. Felicitas. There may be a deeper relationship; economic ties, survival, shelter, and family that may be able to explain slavery in that generation. [http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PERPETUA.HTM] --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:52, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::It wasn't entirely race-based then, and there wasn't a massive slave trade. Slavery in Roman times was very different from antebellum slavery in America, which is what the word "slavery" means today.

::I'm not saying a more precise alternative is available in English, but it's an issue to consider.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:02, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::I absolutely agree. Weren't Roman slaves prisoners of war? And weren't they free after a certain period? If both of these are true, then perhaps "indentured servant" would work. Yes, it has some connotations, but it's much less pejorative than "slavery." I'm trying to think of other words that might be good here, and coming up blank. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 15:05, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::Roman slaves weren't necessarily prisoners of war, and many (indeed most) of them never gained freedom. As a general rule, the only slaves who gained freedom held high positions in their master's household (for example as manager of the other slaves, or as a manager of finance) and it was very uncommon, to say the least, for your average food-bringing, vase-polishing, door-opening slave to gain freedom. If they took wives then any children they had were also slaves. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:11, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

:::::But Roman slaves did escape, I think, and perhaps frequently so. Indeed, I think [[Epistle to Philemon]] relates to an example around A.D. 60.

:::::The point is that "slavery" today means an '''institution''' of racism. That is not what the Bible is talking about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:13, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::While it's true that the word "slavery" today has racist connotations, the actual motivation behind slavery (extremely cheap labour for the buyers, profit for the sellers,and never mind the human chattel) is not racist and was much the same in Rome and America. Slaves in America escaped frequently too (The Underground Railroad, for example), so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. [[User:DerickC|DerickC]] 15:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::::I think "slavery" in the historical American context is, broadly speaking, part-and-parcel with racism, but I don't think that slavery throughout history always meant enslaving those of a different race. My (admittedly non-expert) impression is that sometimes slaves were prisoners of war, sometimes those captured in far-off lands, sometimes children of slaves, sometimes the poor, etc. Of course it is easier to enslave someone who is perceived as inherently very different than the slave-owners. In America, the race aspect was pretty complex; for example some slaves were their masters' biological children, thus the need I suppose for the "one drop" rule. 
"Slavery" today tends to be used to refer to situations where a usually poor, usually uneducated, sometimes in-the-country-illegally person is isolated from others and forced into labor (or worse). Slaves are kept essentially captive through force, intimidation, and/or illegal immigration status. Sometimes the law sides with the slave and prosecutes the slaveholder, but not always. Race is less likely to be a factor, though nationality is. 
The term "prisoner of war" today involves widely-accepted rules as to how prisoners are to be treated; generally speaking they are not subject to forced labor or sexually abused, thus they are not considered to be slaves. I don't know if that was the case throughout history; I think it is likely that it was not the case. 
It's difficult, isn't it?! [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], perhaps it would help if you could explain a bit more about Biblical slavery and how it differed from that of today and our country's experience in the past? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:35, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

: The primary meaning of "slavery" among most English-language speakers is the institution of racial slavery in the antebellum South. That's what we all think of when we hear "slavery". It just is. That is what the word now means, regardless of whether it should mean that.

: That's not the meaning intended in the Bible. Slavery was not racial, and it was not an institution. "Prisoner of war" may be closer to the Roman meaning.

: Our project seeks the original intent without political bias. Translating Roman (and pre-Roman) slavery into the appropriate English terminology that carries the same meaning is the challenge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:51, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

== Oversight? ==

This is a re-post of something I posted under the user name JF1971, before it was blocked for some reason.

----

I agree that many translations have added thoughts and words that were not in the original, inspired Word of God. I also agree that a new, more accurate translation is needed than what is available now. My concern for this project is oversight. A true translation of God's original Word should have continual (not occasional) consultations with the original texts. How can we insure total impartiality in the undertaking of this project. After all, the bible is not meant to be conservative, liberal or anything else.......it is God's Word.....nothing more...nothing less. It is not a political treatise that should be translated with a "conservative" filter, "liberal" filter, "ecological" filter or any other type of political filter. What safeguards are there to insure a lack of political bias of any type in this project?--[[User:ChrisBo|ChrisBo]] 14:46, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:ChrisBo, I understand your concern that there be a continuous reference to the Greek. Be assured that those of us who have been doing a good deal of translating have been making constant and careful references to the Greek, and consulting Greek scholarly sources to maintain accuracy.
:What you misunderstand, what many seem to misunderstand, is that we're not ADDING conservative thoughts and principles to the Bible, we're REVEALING them. The Bible is the ultimate document when it comes to conservatism, logic, reason, and morality, and we're attempting to show this better my removing the dillution of these principles that have crept in over the centuries of translations, or been introduced into once-excellent translations by the changing meanings of word. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:55, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
::...by, for instance, changing one perfectly good and easily-translated word to another, less savory, one when it suits your ideology, because you know what the author of Mark "really meant". --[[User:Jere7my|Jere7my]] 21:08, 7 October 2009 (EDT)
:::Without the chapter and verse, I have no idea what you're talking about, but "less savory" makes me believe you are talking about 6:28. Do you deny that "temptress" accurately describes her? Either contribute, or leave. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:12, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

::::This discussion has opened my eyes: liberals don't like the word "temptress"! Wikipedia even redirects it! The [[ESV]] does not use the English word in its translation, not even once. I'm going to add it to [[Word Analysis of Bible]]. Every day is a new revelation in this project. Actually it's a dozen new revelations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:42, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2009-10-05T17:42:10Z

Jdstarrett: Comment on project

==The Example==
I learned on this site that the Adulteress Story might not be an original addition to the Bible, and after looking into it myself, there does seem to be a good deal of evidence supporting this. I've similarly been trying to find authorities who question the authenticity of the Luke passage given here, but I haven't been able to find any. What is the source for this, and perhaps should the second to last paragraph of [[Essay:Adulteress Story]] be modified to reflect that this passage is also in dispute? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 10:54, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That would be great if you added reference to the doubtful (but often-quoted by liberals) statement in Luke to the end of the Adulteress Story essay.

: As to sources, my hardcopy [[NIV]] (annotated with Greek/Hebrew and other references) explains that this statement in Luke is not in several of the earliest manuscripts. Thinking about the statement, it doesn't make sense and it's not corroborated anywhere else. It's obvious liberal bias.

: The advantage of this conservative Bible project is that it picks out the liberal bias (and thus lack authenticity) easier. Thanks for your contributions to this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:03, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

This is a very interesting study project, but the problem to me is that it begins with the assumption that Christianity must fit with another ideology (conservatism) rather than accepting the possibility that Christianity might in fact not fit with conservatism. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: That's a valid point, but I don't think that taking a conservative approach to translation assumes a perfectly conservative result. The conservative approach is simply a substantive alternative to other approaches, such as "word-for-word" ([[NASB]]) or "thought-for-thought" ([[NIV]]). How ''successful'' the conservative approach is, or how close a fit the text is to conservative substance, is a good topic for discussion ''after'' the approach is taken.

: There are already liberal approaches to translation of the Bible, as reflected by some liberal Bible versions on the market that were developed by predominantly liberal interpreters.

: By the way, on the issue of whether working on a new translation is itself objectionable, I recall that on my final exam in a Greek course the (monastic) teacher required us to translate a passage of the [[New Testament]] into English. No one raised an objection to that, except perhaps to its difficulty! :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::I have no problem with new translations for purposes of learning, though I don't believe that any new translation could be singularly authoritative. I don't believe I could help as I know absolutely nothing about Biblical languages but good luck! [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::: I can see from trying the first book (the [[Epistle to Philemon (Translated)]]) that this approach can be summed as a "conservative thought-for-thought" translation, as words are going to change. "Prisoner" in Christ, or "fellow laborer," just don't resonate as well today. Obviously this is not an easy task, but it is an educational one.

::: Or maybe this could be called a "conservative word-for-word" translation if only individual words are updated.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:58, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

::::Well it's a good idea to change words if the original is not powerful enough or does not properly convey the theological idea. However, my reservation is the possibility of an ideological translation, in which "conservative" words are substituted that might appear to change the original meaning. As you said, it's educational!

What are you considering as a better term for "prisoner" or fellow laborer"? By the way, you should look into [[the Message]] Bible, which attempts (sometimes badly) to update the Bible into modern times without changing the message. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:11, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'm not sure [[the Message]] Bible adhered to conservative principles. Its modernization may have been a liberalization. Adhering to conservative principles is what gives credibility and guidance to a modern translation.

: "Laborer" has an overriding economic meaning today. That can't be what Paul meant - he was a volunteer! "Fellow traveler", perhaps, or more conservative (and more accurate) might be "fellow volunteer."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you have some person who speaks Hebrew to help with this? I am a native speaker. I will help if you give me specific problems you have to translate. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 00:19, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

: We welcome all legitimate contributions to this project.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:05, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::I do not so far think I have much to contribute for what I have seen you working on so far from the Christian Gospels because it was not written in Hebrew, but please keep me in mind as a native speaker when you have questions about Biblical Hebrew from the Tanach. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 12:17, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::OK. You're welcome to post a book from the Hebrew Bible and start on it, just as I did from the New Testament. Our goal is to translate the entire Bible, so the sooner we include the Hebrew, the better!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::I think the project of updating a Bible by addressing idea by idea concerns about older translations is great because language evolves by its nature to accommodate the milieu and ethos of its time. One must be able to refer to the original language when there are questions about the real meaning of words. I think modern languages are most assuredly more capable of accurately and forcefully communicating ideas that make better sense to us than the old languages of our forefathers. But I do not know with what eye you would view the Tanach to make this translation of the Bible. It seems to me that for the most part any English language translation of the Bible that is written in such prose that pleases one would be an adequate starting point for then going in earnest to search for and root out translations that are not correct or could be more adequately expressed in modern language. I will examine the program for this project that you have put on the first page of this article and set to working on the Tanach with your guidance. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 14:06, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::For a translation in English, it seems reasonable to use the [[King James Version]] as the baseline, since it has been widely accepted, it is written at the highest grade level, and it is freely available (public domain). Sound good?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
::::::I do not have the King James Version, but I see that it is available online. It is filled with archaic Jacobean language, so I can certainly see why you would wish to make a modern translation. I have looked at the work done on the Gospel of Mark and have some questions about how this project is done. Is someone doing this translation from looking at the original Greek to modernize the language? Or is it being done through some other concern? The sentence structure is sometimes far different than the original King James Version that I think the sentences are being restated in some manner. Is this correct? I am trying to understand what makes a conservative bible, so wonder what some of the 12 conditions stated on the project page mean. For example, Number 11 says "use glorifying language for the remarkable achievements." Does this mean that if the idea of the glory of a person's conduct or person is not in the Bible it is to be added? Also "recognizing that Christianity introduced powerful new concepts that even the Greek and Hebrew were inadequate to express, but modern conservative language can express well" is not clear to me - if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language because it was beyond the ability of the writer to communicate in the original language. One might surmise what the author intended and make appropriate notes. However the language of the Bible itself is what must be translated or it is not a translation but a restatement and amplification of ideas rather than language. I think this last point clarifies the source of my confusion about the project. I look forward to hearing from you. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 16:32, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I don't agree that "if some concept was not adequately expressed in Hebrew or Greek it cannot be adequately expressed in a translation into another language." Parables, for example, transcend inadequacies in language and it is fully possible to take a parable written in a simplistic language and express it more fully in a richer language.

:::::::A [[conservative Bible]] uses the richness provided in part by conservative language to fully convey the concepts. The original Greek and Hebrew may help sometimes, or they may be inadequate. "Logos" in the beginning of John illustrates this point, as the term is merely the best the Greek has to offer. "Truth" as fully understood and used today, as developed and popularized by the conservative movement (it's rarely used by the Left), is a better term to convey the concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:56, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
Are you and who else is helping with the Gospel of Mark referring to the Greek when making your changes to the KJV? [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:04, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

== Wikilinking some things, Footnotes ==

Seeing the comment "Translate Beelzebub better?" in the Mark translation got me thinking. This project is unlike many other translation projects, in that it is being conducted on a wiki that has an absolute wealth of information on relevant topics. What do people think of wikilinking terms that might be unfamiliar to readers. I'm '''not''' suggesting that every term that has a corresponding wiki page get a link. That would just look messy. I do think it might be useful to link things like place names (provided that they have adequate associated pages.) It's like the best footnotes you could hope for. Of course, things should still be translated in such a way that everything makes sense without having to click on links for things, but there are places where I think that a wikilink would be just the thing. (Additionally, adding footnotes might not be a bad idea in general - there may be places where it's hard to capture the nuance and context without breaking the cadence or pace of the prose or adding an bunch of detail that isn't in the original text.) [[User:DaveB7|DaveB7]] 14:27, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

== Peace in concordance ==

I looked up the word 'peace' in the NT and found a few different words being translated into peace.
* G2270 - ἡσυχάζω - hēsychazō - used 5 times. hold (one's) peace 2, rest 1, cease 1, be quiet 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2270&t=KJV]
* G5392 - φιμόω - phimoō - used 8 times. put to silence 2, hold (one's) peace 2, muzzle 2, be speechless 1, be still 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G4623 - σιωπάω - siōpaō - used 11 times. hold (one's) peace 9, peace 1, dumb 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4623&t=KJV]
* G1515 - εἰρήνη - eirēnē - used 92 times. peace 89, one 1, rest 1, quietness 1 [http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1515&t=KJV]
While G2270, G5392, and G4623 have changed the meaning over time - to hold one's peace is archaic phrasing, G1515 is still very much the word 'peace'.

G1515 is defined as:
# a state of national tranquillity
## exemption from the rage and havoc of war
# peace between individuals, i.e. harmony, concord
# security, safety, prosperity, felicity, (because peace and harmony make and keep things safe and prosperous)
# of the Messiah's peace
## the way that leads to peace (salvation)
# of Christianity, the tranquil state of a soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot, of whatsoever sort that is
# the blessed state of devout and upright men after death

Matthew 10:34 uses G1515 as peace. ''Think 3543 not 3361 that 3754 I am come 2064 to send 906 peace 1515 on 1909 earth 1093: I came 2064 not 3756 to send 906 peace 1515, but 235 a sword 3162.'' The numbers following are the Strong's numbers. In this case, the definitions 1, 2, and 3 are certainly the proper translations rather than 4, 5, or 6.

Likewise, Luke 2:14 uses G1515 as peace. "Glory 1391 to God 2316 in 1722 the highest 5310, and 2532 on 1909 earth 1093 peace 1515, good will 2107 toward 1722 men 444"

The word eirēnē is from the Greek goddess of the same name (Pax in Roman mythology) and was a deity that was against war.[http://www.theoi.com/Ouranios/HoraEirene.html]

I am curious if it is indeed G1515 that is being said that the meaning has changed over time and how those 89 uses in KJV as peace would be changed. --[[User:JohnnyS|JohnnyS]] 22:13, 27 September 2009 (EDT)

: Thanks for the superb analysis. I'm going to study your work further. My immediate reaction is that the most common use of "peace" in the Bible, as in "peace be with you," really means the Hebrew concept of "shalom". It's a fullness and tranquility of mind, and that's not what the word now primarily means in English. See, e.g., [http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/1_10/shalom]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:54, 27 September 2009 (EDT)
===========================================
I'm not sure how 'conservative' it is, but there's an 'updating' of the KJV I found a few years ago called the 21st Century King James (unsigned by Right Wing 2)

: I don't think it is conservative at all. In fact, I think it fails on several of the guidelines outlined in the content entry here. But thanks for mentioning it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Revelation 22:19 says be very careful when you re-translate the Bible ==

"''And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.''" - King James Version

...although it doesn't say anything about adding to the "words of the book" - just taking away - you still need to be prayerfully and thoughtfully careful, keeping true to the original Greek or Aramaic. Keep in mind some of the Bible is just poetry, which never translates well. And alliteration and other word tricks that sound good in one language just don't translate well at all, like the "camel and the eye of the needle" story element in Aramaic has the words "gamel" (camel) and "gimel" (needle) next to each other, which helps the hearer remember the story. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 11:17, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

: You raise interesting issues, but your interpretation is erroneous. The sentence does not say "take away words" as you imply, but it says "take away from the words." The point obviously relates to meaning, not to specific words.

: We are experts here at defending against liberal bias, which is the greatest threat to the meaning of the Bible. We comply with your quoted sentence by working against attempts to dilute and distort biblical meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:32, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

== Use the original texts ==
How can you effectively translate an existing translation? That makes your translation like playing telephone and all you are going to get in the end it something even farther from the original document. Go back to the original Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc. Also, are you going to include the apocrypha or take out any books? [[User:Fsamuels|Fsamuels]] 12:21, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
:I presume from your comment that you're versed in some ancient languages, in which case, your contributions to the project would be very much appreciated! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:22, 5 October 2009 (EDT)

:Fsamuels, your contributions are most welcome to this project, and we do refer to the so-called "original" texts as needed. But note that the Greek (you seem unsure in identifying the language) was itself an imperfect language for conveying certain powerful concepts, and that many of the translation disputes today are unrelated to the original language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
::If "certain powerful concepts" are not (perfectly) preserved in the languages of the earliest manuscripts, then from what source do you infer more perfect "translations"? [[User:AngusF|AngusF]] 13:30, 5 October 2009 (EDT)
==Treading dangerous ground==
I am really surprised by this project. As far as I am concerned you are treading very dangerous ground. You are proposing that we retranslate the Bible based on a political agenda. The Bible is God's word, not yours. If you want to retranslate based on a new understanding of the original documents, and you have the scholarship to do so, then go right ahead. What is happening here, it seems to me, is not an effort to correct an older mistranslation or to shed new light.
[[User:JDStarrett|JDStarrett]] 11:41, 5 October 2009 (MST)

Talk:Mathematics

2009-07-01T23:02:59Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to math entries. Rather than discussing it, why not just begin? There's nothing special about math entries. Like any other entry, it should be clear and educational, and not an incoherent rat's nest of jargon like on Wikipedia. Also, math is not immune from liberal bias, and we'll keep the bias out of math entries here just as we do for the other entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Great! I'm not really sure what a "wikiproject" would entail -- would it be useful to set one up? How would I do it? I'd like to get started writing, but the existing articles don't really give me a clear sense of the level and breadth to shoot for. If you could point out a few exemplary articles at the right level, it would be very helpful. For example, how much of elementary real analysis should we aim to cover? Should Cauchy Sequence have its own page, or is that beyond what we're aiming for? The existing article looks pretty useful already. What about things like uniform convergence? These are very specific questions, but I'm equally unsure of just what topics in subjects like differential geometry or algebraic topology merit though own pages. The page on homotopy groups strikes me as not particularly useful, since no one ought to be trying to learn all the necessary definitions here, and it doesn't give much more. But I believe it could be rewritten to aid the intuition of those learning it, and to pique the interest of even high schoolers. Surely we don't want to write textbooks on these subjects, I'm just not sure how much ought to be said. There doesn't seem to have been much consistency in the history of the math articles on CP about what belongs and what doesn't, and some guidelines would be much appreciated. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:28, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?

:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, try this layout:
*Introduction
*Symbols, Equations, and Theories
*Pure and Applied Mathematics
::Pure Mathematics
::Applied Mathematics
*Branches of Mathematics
::Arithmetic
::Algebra
::Calculus
::Chaos Theory
::Geometry
::Number Theory
::Probability and Statistics
::Set Theory and Logic
::Systems Analysis
::Triginometry
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, that looks like a reasonable outline for the whole category (though with most of the emphasis on things covered in school -- there are currently many more advanced pages here). What I am wondering is what subtopics of these merit their own pages, and whether we want any rigor in defining basic concepts. What topics in number theory merit their own pages? Should we attempt to define something like a number field (with appropriate motivation and examples, of course), or just write elementary things like Fermat's little theorem? Or no subpages at all? I'm just not sure of the scope that CP is aiming for in these pages, so it's hard to know what writing would be most useful. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:53, 1 July 2009 (EDT)
:::MarkGall, this is just a basic outline for a basic article that goes into general detail about the subject at hand. This article itself ''is a general article'', and it's not necessary to get into greater detail other then to provide simple descriptions of what each topic is about; the topics themselves will lead to more detailed articles as necessary. So, sit back with a cold beverage, turn up Michael Jackson's ''Thriller'' or Beethoven's 9th symphony, and just work the article as planned. You'd be surprised where it leads you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:22, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, there's nothing special about math pages. As with any other topic here, just enter good educational material as you see fit. The wiki software permits easy improvement afterward. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Sorry for dragging out this discussion so much (and I'll get back to real editing after this post). The math pages here are in dreadful shape, because everyone just writes whatever they want. There is no consistency in the level of the pages or the degree of rigor, and there is no organization to the category. As such I very much doubt that most of them in their current form are of use to, or interesting to, students or anyone else. But they could be. I understand that I could improve things by just going one article at a time, but a set of guidelines from some admin about the desired level and content would go a long way in improving the consistency and quality of these articles. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)

:::::: What sets Conservapedia apart, and in many ways above, the sources you cite is that Conservapedia is an ''educational'' resource free of [[liberal bias]]. That applies to the math entries just like any other.

::::::: I don't know what you mean by "liberal bias" in regards to mathematics in the sources I cited, and the Wikipedia, Scholarpedia and Wolfram site are certainly educational in nature. That said, it appears that a good start has been made on remodeling the mathematics section. Has anyone considered inviting Robert Herrmann to write an article on nonstandard analysis? He is a believer with an extremely interesting story, many published articles on mathematics and Christianity (and both!) and impeccable credentials. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 16:49, 1 July 2009 (MST)

:::::: A wiki is not for standing around talking. It's for substantive edits, and the sooner one starts, the better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

==Layout is rearranged==
Ok, MarkGall...fill in the blanks! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:34, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

Debate:Who created God?

2009-07-01T17:41:41Z

Jdstarrett:

If there exist a God/superior being who created this being. When I ask this question I get " God created himself". How is this logical?-Ros

Why is it necessary for God to have been created? God could always have existed. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. God does not exist.

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

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

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

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

[[User:ChillinBM]]

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

== Break to assist editing ==

To '''Bolly''':

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

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

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

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

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

To '''Jirby''':

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

To '''ChillinBM''':

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.

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

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

:- God doesn't exist.

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

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

:[[User:ChillinBM]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[User:ChillinBM]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Mysticism

2009-07-01T17:35:00Z

Jdstarrett: Added Meister Eckhart

'''Mysticism''' is the idea that special mental states allow the communion with, or direct experience of, God. Mystics can use texts which are, or are not, canonical, like the [[Book of Revelation]]. Practices said to lead to this state are prayer, fasting and self-denial.

The mystical tradition is 2000 years old. Important texts are:

Galatians 2:20
: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but [[Christ]] liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me
1 John 3:2
: Beloved, now we are the [[sons of God]], and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
II Peter 1:4
: exceedingly great and precious promises [are given unto us]; that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust
2 Corinthians 12:2-4
: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) how that he was caught up into [[paradise]], and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

People claimed as mystics include [[John the Baptist]], Saint [[Peter]], [[St. Francis of Assisi]], [[Meister Eckhart]] (Eckhart von Hochheim), [[T. S. Eliot]], and [[Vernon Howard]].

== References ==
* [http://hirr.hartsem.edu/ency/Mysticism.htm Mysticism in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Society]
* [http://www.ccg.org/english/s/b7_4.html Mysticism, Christian Churches of God ]
* [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/ Mysticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)]

[[category:Spirituality]]

Talk:Mathematics

2009-07-01T16:24:15Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to math entries. Rather than discussing it, why not just begin? There's nothing special about math entries. Like any other entry, it should be clear and educational, and not an incoherent rat's nest of jargon like on Wikipedia. Also, math is not immune from liberal bias, and we'll keep the bias out of math entries here just as we do for the other entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Great! I'm not really sure what a "wikiproject" would entail -- would it be useful to set one up? How would I do it? I'd like to get started writing, but the existing articles don't really give me a clear sense of the level and breadth to shoot for. If you could point out a few exemplary articles at the right level, it would be very helpful. For example, how much of elementary real analysis should we aim to cover? Should Cauchy Sequence have its own page, or is that beyond what we're aiming for? The existing article looks pretty useful already. What about things like uniform convergence? These are very specific questions, but I'm equally unsure of just what topics in subjects like differential geometry or algebraic topology merit though own pages. The page on homotopy groups strikes me as not particularly useful, since no one ought to be trying to learn all the necessary definitions here, and it doesn't give much more. But I believe it could be rewritten to aid the intuition of those learning it, and to pique the interest of even high schoolers. Surely we don't want to write textbooks on these subjects, I'm just not sure how much ought to be said. There doesn't seem to have been much consistency in the history of the math articles on CP about what belongs and what doesn't, and some guidelines would be much appreciated. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:28, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?

:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, try this layout:
*Introduction
*Symbols, Equations, and Theories
*Pure and Applied Mathematics
::Pure Mathematics
::Applied Mathematics
*Branches of Mathematics
::Arithmetic
::Algebra
::Calculus
::Chaos Theory
::Geometry
::Number Theory
::Probability and Statistics
::Set Theory and Logic
::Systems Analysis
::Triginometry
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, that looks like a reasonable outline for the whole category (though with most of the emphasis on things covered in school -- there are currently many more advanced pages here). What I am wondering is what subtopics of these merit their own pages, and whether we want any rigor in defining basic concepts. What topics in number theory merit their own pages? Should we attempt to define something like a number field (with appropriate motivation and examples, of course), or just write elementary things like Fermat's little theorem? Or no subpages at all? I'm just not sure of the scope that CP is aiming for in these pages, so it's hard to know what writing would be most useful. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:53, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, there's nothing special about math pages. As with any other topic here, just enter good educational material as you see fit. The wiki software permits easy improvement afterward. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Sorry for dragging out this discussion so much (and I'll get back to real editing after this post). The math pages here are in dreadful shape, because everyone just writes whatever they want. There is no consistency in the level of the pages or the degree of rigor, and there is no organization to the category. As such I very much doubt that most of them in their current form are of use to, or interesting to, students or anyone else. But they could be. I understand that I could improve things by just going one article at a time, but a set of guidelines from some admin about the desired level and content would go a long way in improving the consistency and quality of these articles. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)

Talk:Mathematics

2009-07-01T16:23:45Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to math entries. Rather than discussing it, why not just begin? There's nothing special about math entries. Like any other entry, it should be clear and educational, and not an incoherent rat's nest of jargon like on Wikipedia. Also, math is not immune from liberal bias, and we'll keep the bias out of math entries here just as we do for the other entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Great! I'm not really sure what a "wikiproject" would entail -- would it be useful to set one up? How would I do it? I'd like to get started writing, but the existing articles don't really give me a clear sense of the level and breadth to shoot for. If you could point out a few exemplary articles at the right level, it would be very helpful. For example, how much of elementary real analysis should we aim to cover? Should Cauchy Sequence have its own page, or is that beyond what we're aiming for? The existing article looks pretty useful already. What about things like uniform convergence? These are very specific questions, but I'm equally unsure of just what topics in subjects like differential geometry or algebraic topology merit though own pages. The page on homotopy groups strikes me as not particularly useful, since no one ought to be trying to learn all the necessary definitions here, and it doesn't give much more. But I believe it could be rewritten to aid the intuition of those learning it, and to pique the interest of even high schoolers. Surely we don't want to write textbooks on these subjects, I'm just not sure how much ought to be said. There doesn't seem to have been much consistency in the history of the math articles on CP about what belongs and what doesn't, and some guidelines would be much appreciated. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:28, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?

:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, try this layout:
*Introduction
*Symbols, Equations, and Theories
*Pure and Applied Mathematics
::Pure Mathematics
::Applied Mathematics
*Branches of Mathematics
::Arithmetic
::Algebra
::Calculus
::Chaos Theory
::Geometry
::Number Theory
::Probability and Statistics
::Set Theory and Logic
::Systems Analysis
::Triginometry
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, that looks like a reasonable outline for the whole category (though with most of the emphasis on things covered in school -- there are currently many more advanced pages here). What I am wondering is what subtopics of these merit their own pages, and whether we want any rigor in defining basic concepts. What topics in number theory merit their own pages? Should we attempt to define something like a number field (with appropriate motivation and examples, of course), or just write elementary things like Fermat's little theorem? Or no subpages at all? I'm just not sure of the scope that CP is aiming for in these pages, so it's hard to know what writing would be most useful. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:53, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, there's nothing special about math pages. As with any other topic here, just enter good educational material as you see fit. The wiki software permits easy improvement afterward. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Sorry for dragging out this discussion so much (and I'll get back to real editing after this post). The math pages here are in dreadful shape, because everyone just writes whatever they want. There is no consistency in the level of the pages or the degree of rigor, and there is no organization to the category. As such I very much doubt that most of them in their current form are of use to, or interesting to, students or anyone else. But they could be. I understand that I could improve things by just going one article at a time, but a set of guidelines from some admin about the desired level and content would go a long way in improving the consistency and quality of these articles. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::: No one wants their energy to be wasted and work deleted, and there is no sense in duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? To make it clear to a different target group. Scholarpedia is aimed at professional scientists, students of science and highly motivated non-scientists, Wikipedia is (supposedly) aimed at ordinary folk -- so, aside from a conservative POV (which doesn't apply to science, as far as I am concerned), what should differentiate mathematics articles here? I don't think there is any harm in adopting a "mission statement" of sorts, and spending a little time making sure the goals are crystal clear.[[User:jdstarrett|John Starrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)

Talk:Mathematics

2009-07-01T16:14:55Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */

This is great, conservapedia has half a page about mathematics, whereas wikipedia has dozens upon dozens of pages devoted to various fields of mathematics. I'm glad to see that conservapedia has no interest what-so-ever in mathematics, a true testament to the intelligence of this fine, fine website. {{unsigned|GroupsAndFields}}

: Dude, you misspelled "testament". Try improving yourself first and then you might be in a position to criticize others.

: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia does not take the childish approach of "more words is better." We strive to be concise as a good encyclopedia should. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:57, 24 May 2008 (EDT)
:: [Note: GroupsAndFields corrected his original spelling of "testiment" after this [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:55, 31 May 2008 (EDT)]

: Also, Conservapedia has been around for only a year and a half, whereas Wikipedia has had 7 years to acquire all its articles. I'd say the amount of content, mathematical and otherwise, that CP has produced in that short time is downright astounding. While I don't think we will usurp the position of a pure mathematical reference such as [http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ MathWorld], we will have a thorough sampling of all the major concepts of mathematics in an accessible form. That's the content a general knowledge encyclopedia should have. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 22:12, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

== Let's do this. ==

And by "this" I mean "make major strides in the quality and quantity of mathematics articles on Conservapedia". I'm new here and don't know whether to just jump in or to cool my heels and appeal to authority. [[User:RandRover1982|RandRover1982]] 22:13, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I think there should be some sort of comment from the higher-ups at Conservapedia on the quality of the articles and the improvements that need to be made in order for the article to be up to standards. Here, for instance, the article needs to be expanded, referenced, linked and corrected. The subject of mathematics is too important to have such a brief sketch as the main entry. Mathematics is perhaps the only area of "science" that has no conflict with scripture. [[User:jdstarrett|jdstarrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)
:We are only a two year old encyclopedia. We need editors to improve the site and that doesn't begin nor end with mathematics. Please contribute to a worthy cause. Is math science? --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:52, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::Whether it's science or not, it would be helpful if some admin would take charge of the math here and give us a real vision of what CP math should be. Articles on basic topics like the derivative and Riemann integral have been deleted in the past, while the article on multiplier ideal sheaves is still here (a perfectly reasonable exposition, but obviously far beyond CP's math coverage). There's no real organization to the articles, and the "mathematics" main page links to a lot of stubs giving very short explanations of various topics in mathematics that won't be useful to anyone not already familiar with them ("number theory", etc.). I tried to expand "differential geometry" and a couple similar articles to actually give some idea what these subjects are about, but there's a lot left to do and I'm reluctant to start more serious work until there are real guidelines for what should be in such articles. On the other hand, there are a fairly large number of good articles sitting out there, which just need to be organized somehow.

::I'm inclined to think that definitions of (relatively) basic notions in differential geometry like the curvature tensor (and similar topics in other fields) will probably never belong here. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to give a fluffy take on what differential geometry is all about, and provide easy references for interested students. Is this the level for which we are aiming? The articles on basic algebraic structures are at a similar level -- a definition, some examples and motivation, but no difficult theorems.

::There's also some question about how to integrate the very basic articles (on high school algebra and geometry) into the larger structure of the math articles here. I hope that expository articles about interesting topics not covered in high school do have a place here alongside the high school math. How to integrate these two sorts of articles into a coherent whole is another task.

::As you've probably guessed, I have some thoughts about how everything could be laid out, and I'd be happy to discuss these with anyone who's interested. On the other hand, I'd be equally happy jump in and get writing once someone else articulates clear goals for what articles need to be written and at what level. Until that happens, I'm not sure where to start, and I don't want all my work to end up getting deleted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 13:39, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::What Conservapedia has done in the past in order to adopt standards and guidelines is to create Wikiprojects; example wikiproject news, wikiproject religion. You can start a wikiproject group, add math users and develop a strategy. I am sure [[user:Aschlafly]] would need to approve but I don't think it will be an issue he would frown upon.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:46, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, if you please submit your proposal here as to how you would like to see this article laid out and presented. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:49, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:I don't really have a complete proposal for what should be done, just a few thoughts here and there about what's appropriate that I'd be interested in hearing feedback on. The organization of this front article is probably the most difficult of all to envision, since it depends on everything else! I'll try to write up some of my thoughts in the next couple days and post here -- I might also check into the wikiproject idea (thanks, Jpatt). --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 14:32, 30 June 2009 (EDT)
::I can help in the fields of differential equations (probably more university-oriented), Linear algebra (high school to early university), z-transforms (definitely late university), and linear regressions (high school to early university), if anyone wants to open a wikiproject. [[User:ChuckK|ChuckK]] 15:29, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::I can also contribute to math entries. Rather than discussing it, why not just begin? There's nothing special about math entries. Like any other entry, it should be clear and educational, and not an incoherent rat's nest of jargon like on Wikipedia. Also, math is not immune from liberal bias, and we'll keep the bias out of math entries here just as we do for the other entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:33, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::Great! I'm not really sure what a "wikiproject" would entail -- would it be useful to set one up? How would I do it? I'd like to get started writing, but the existing articles don't really give me a clear sense of the level and breadth to shoot for. If you could point out a few exemplary articles at the right level, it would be very helpful. For example, how much of elementary real analysis should we aim to cover? Should Cauchy Sequence have its own page, or is that beyond what we're aiming for? The existing article looks pretty useful already. What about things like uniform convergence? These are very specific questions, but I'm equally unsure of just what topics in subjects like differential geometry or algebraic topology merit though own pages. The page on homotopy groups strikes me as not particularly useful, since no one ought to be trying to learn all the necessary definitions here, and it doesn't give much more. But I believe it could be rewritten to aid the intuition of those learning it, and to pique the interest of even high schoolers. Surely we don't want to write textbooks on these subjects, I'm just not sure how much ought to be said. There doesn't seem to have been much consistency in the history of the math articles on CP about what belongs and what doesn't, and some guidelines would be much appreciated. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 21:28, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

::::: Mark, please start however you see fit. But please focus on a style that really does teach and explain, rather than simply dumping a ton of jargon on a page as is often found in math/science entries on Wikipedia. Conservapedia is a learning resource, and math/science entries here should proceed from the simple to the complex in a clear style that actually educates rather than merely tries to show off. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:47, 30 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Your suggestions are great guidelines to start with, but I'd appreciate just a bit more specific guidance. The fact that all editors have been doing whatever they see fit is the reason that the math articles are presently so inconsistent in depth and scope. If someone could just create a set of guidelines about a) what topics merit their own CP pages and b) the extent to which we should favor motivation and examples over precise definitions, it would make editing much easier. I appreciate that including definitions risks becoming too jargony, but including the definition of something like a group seems to me essential for any reasonable treatment. Is this talk page the appropriate forum to discuss such guidelines?

:::::: In any case, I'll try to write a few articles on differential geometry the level that I think is appropriate. This will probably entail beefing up the motivation on [[differential geometry]] and adding a page about Gaussian curvature for surfaces in R^3, with motivation for the more general situation. I will also write a page about minimal surfaces, with particular reference to the 3d case, but perhaps some discussion of mean curvature. Once these are up, please tell me what you think! After that I may work on [[algebraic topology]], but that topic looks like it will require a substantial amount of cleaning of the existing pages to a more appropriate level. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 00:02, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

MarkGall, try this layout:
*Introduction
*Symbols, Equations, and Theories
*Pure and Applied Mathematics
::Pure Mathematics
::Applied Mathematics
*Branches of Mathematics
::Arithmetic
::Algebra
::Calculus
::Chaos Theory
::Geometry
::Number Theory
::Probability and Statistics
::Set Theory and Logic
::Systems Analysis
::Triginometry
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:35, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:Sure, that looks like a reasonable outline for the whole category (though with most of the emphasis on things covered in school -- there are currently many more advanced pages here). What I am wondering is what subtopics of these merit their own pages, and whether we want any rigor in defining basic concepts. What topics in number theory merit their own pages? Should we attempt to define something like a number field (with appropriate motivation and examples, of course), or just write elementary things like Fermat's little theorem? Or no subpages at all? I'm just not sure of the scope that CP is aiming for in these pages, so it's hard to know what writing would be most useful. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 10:53, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

:: Mark, there's nothing special about math pages. As with any other topic here, just enter good educational material as you see fit. The wiki software permits easy improvement afterward. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:04, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::: Sorry for dragging out this discussion so much (and I'll get back to real editing after this post). The math pages here are in dreadful shape, because everyone just writes whatever they want. There is no consistency in the level of the pages or the degree of rigor, and there is no organization to the category. As such I very much doubt that most of them in their current form are of use to, or interesting to, students or anyone else. But they could be. I understand that I could improve things by just going one article at a time, but a set of guidelines from some admin about the desired level and content would go a long way in improving the consistency and quality of these articles. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 11:12, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::Mark, this is a wiki, not a talk site. Please edit a math entry as you think best, and I'll improve it, and then someone else will improve it, and then it will be a superb educational resource. That's how the benefits of a wiki are harnessed. Please: less talk, more substance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:43, 1 July 2009 (EDT)

::::: No one wants their work to be wasted or deleted, and there is no sense in wasting or duplicating effort. Mathematical terminology and structure is pretty much standard, but the nature of a good mathematics article, whether in Conservapedia, Wikipedia, Wolfram or Scholarpedia, would be characterized by a clarity of exposition and correctness. What is needed, in my opinion, is a different slant from those in other sources. Why would you want to duplicate an article about, say, symbolic dynamics if there is a perfectly good one in Scholarpedia? [[User:jdstarrett|John Starrett]] 10:48, 30 June 2009 (MST)

Talk:Mathematics

2009-06-30T16:48:39Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */

Talk:Mathematics

2009-06-30T16:47:25Z

Jdstarrett: /* Let's do this. */