Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Black Sabbath

2012-03-28T18:26:02Z

JeremyK: Removed out of date information and replaced it with updated version.

'''Black Sabbath''' is an [[English]] [[rock]] band, often credited with being the first [[heavy metal]] band. Its music has had a considerable, extensive influence over the genre, from the band's formation in [[Birmingham]] in 1968 to the present day. Originally, the band's music was a dark amalgamation of [[blues]] and psychedelic rock, but quickly developed into the sound recognizable today, setting the template that would be adhered to by many heavy metal and rock bands in the 1970s and 1980s.

It is known to non-fans primarily for the controversy arising from the perceived gloominess of its music and lyrical themes and, more specifically, the erratic on-stage (and, eventually, off-stage) behaviour of frontman [[Ozzy Osbourne]]. As often happens, this controversy has eclipsed the cultural significance of the band's music. It is also known for having undergone numerous line-up changes. Surprisingly, however, the band is currently comprised of the four original members: Tony Iommi, Bill Ward, Terence "Geezer" Butler and Osbourne. The line-up from the album "mob rules" recently toured as Heaven and Hell, but due to the death of Ronnie James Dio Heaven and Hell are no longer touring. The original band members are planning to tour again in 2012.

==Discography==

* Black Sabbath (1970)
* Paranoid (1970)
* Master Of Reality (1971)
* Black Sabbath, Vol. 4 (1972)
* Sabbath Bloody Sabbath (1973)
* Sabotage (1975)
* Technical Ecstasy (1976)
* Never Say Die (1978)
* Heaven And Hell (1980)
* Mob Rules (1981)
* Born Again (1983)
* Seventh Star (1986)
* The Eternal Idol (1987)
* The Headless Cross (1989)
* Tyr (1990)
* Dehumanizer (1992)
* Cross Purposes (1994)
* Forbidden (1995)

[[Category:Heavy Metal]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-04T13:50:47Z

JeremyK: /* Section or new article on future knowledge */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.
::This article: "Biblical scientific foreknowledge" has so many strange ideas in it that it makes me wonder if it's written to deliberately make conservatives look stupid! Abiogenesis has never been observed by a single scientist and is therefore not scientific - and Conservapedia's own MAIN PAGE says exactly that (May 13, 2011)! Of course God created life from nothing but when we say that "science" has now caught up with the Bible when the ONLY (pseudo)scientific theory (evolution) that promotes Abiogenesis is designed specifically to "prove" the Bible wrong - we're contradicting ourselves. I suggest that Abiogenesis be deleted from this article.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.
::: Is this in reference to Job 9:9? Because none of the translations the I have read on biblegateway.com make any reference to stars moving at all.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws. {{unsigned|Entheogenicorder}}

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

::This article definitely does more harm to the Christian/Conservative cause than it does good. There were certain things I expected to be present in it (such as the reason God told the Israelites to circumcise on the 8th day being that vitamin K [blood clotting vitamin] is not present until the 8th day - this was discovered in the 1930s) but I was so distracted by paragraphs which seem to belong in a Star Trek forum (Wave-Particle Duality, Quantum tunneling and the Banach-Tarski Paradox to name a few) that I've begun (as many others seem to have tried and sadly failed) to ask to have such laughable claptrap removed. I thought a liberal had vandalized the article until I began reading the talk page and discovered to my shock that this hogwash is defended by certain Conservapedians all the way to the top!

::We are not on the Starship Enterprise. This article needs desperate editing with a chainsaw.

::As respectfully as I can manage and with kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 20:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

This section has a false title. The Bible does not "give a value of pi" but rather relates the circumference of a particular structure to its diameter:

* He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits [a] from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits [b] to measure around it.

Ten cubits doesn't mean 220 inches, plus or minus one inch. It's obviously a [[round number]]. Atheists are grasping at straws if they think the rim to rim distance was being givin to within less than 5 percent.

The tip off should be that both numbers were a multiple of ten. Now, if we saw a number like 35 cubits for the diameter, '''then''' we might expect a more precise value for the circumference, i.e., 110 cubits.

By drawing such foolish conclusions, atheists and liberals just show how inconsistent their own reasoning is, rather than "pointing out" any supposed error in the Bible.

I'd like to take it back to the Nobel Peace Prize they gave Al Gore and them all for ignoring the fact that [[correlation is not causation]] and deciding that atmospheric temperature is driven by carbon dioxide levels. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 1 October 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of pathogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of pathogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appear to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
A Hungarian doctor of the nineteenth century, Ignaz Semmelweis, understood the control of deadly infectious diseases through washing. Despite his great attempts to get the medical community to comply, they resisted and eventually Dr. Semmelweis had a breakdown[32] and committed suicide. Yet the ancient Israelites washed in "running water" when dealing with those afflicted with infectious discharges or coming in contact with items that they had come in contact with. For example, the Mosaic law states in the book of Leviticus the following:"And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean. Leviticus 15:13"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:29, 5 October 2010 (EDT)
:::Max Neuberger, writing in his "History of Medicine" declares: "The commands concern prophylaxis and suppression of epidemics,[16] suppression of venereal disease and prostitution, care of the skin, baths...housing and clothing, regulation of labour, sexual life, discipline of the people, etc. Many of these commands, such as Sabbath rest, circumcision,[18][19]...measures concerning menstruating and lying-in women,[20] and those suffering from gonorrhoea, isolation of lepers, and hygiene of the camp, are, in view of the conditions of the climate, surprisingly rational.[21]"[http://www.creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:35, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

If I were a liberal or an atheist and read this ridiculous "Digestive System" section, I would send it to my like-minded friends so they could laugh at this utter nonsense.

Jesus shunned the POMP and CEREMONY surrounding the hand-washing RITUALS created by the Pharisees and the legalists of the day and pointed out that people are not made clean by hand-washing CEREMONIES but by the words that come out of their mouths. (Matt 15:1-2,11 Some Pharisees and teachers of religious law now arrived from Jerusalem to see Jesus. They asked him, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition? For they ignore our tradition of ceremonial hand washing before they eat.” [Jesus replied] “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come out of your mouth.” NLT). The CBP Analysis says the same of those verses: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations." Jesus said the same thing in Mark 7. He is remarking on spiritual cleanliness - not physical cleanliness.

Jesus wasn't contradicting the PHYSICAL cleanliness laws (see Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy) which HE HIMSELF had spoken to Moses (as God the Son) thousands of years previously. Physical cleanliness was the very reason he had given those laws and others like them (eg circumcision to prevent vaginal infections [but it has no spiritual value]).

All anyone has to do to prove that he truly believes hand washing doesn't help your digestive health is to handle some dog/cat/chicken/pig mess in their bare hands and not wash them before eating. Any takers?

Please, please delete this section. It is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words. He was showing his disdain for CEREMONIES - not cleanliness.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 12:36, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

As nobody has taken up my challenge (to NOT wash his/her hands after handling animal excrement and then eating), does anyone object to the complete removal of this laughable section on handwashing (whose Biblical reference has nothing to do with Jesus telling people that handwashing is unnecessary and everything to do with Jesus telling people that CEREMONY is unnecessary)? The arguments above purport that Jesus contradicted the very commands He Himself gave to Moses thousands of years before. Jesus could not contradict Himself.

If there are no objections in a reasonable amount of time, I'm going to delete it.

Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:40, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

: I object to its deletion. While you make an interesting point, I doubt that the handwashing that Jesus rejected was merely "ceremonial". Jesus did seem to making a point about germs. The unusual example of where handwashing is essential did not apply in this (or most) situations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:37, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

:Jesus did NOT AT ALL seem to be making a point about germs. He was talking to an audience who had never heard of them.

:Andy, I'll bet you wash your hands before eating, don't you? Especially if you've been to the bathroom, right? You can't expect me to believe that if you and your wife sat down to lunch and she asked what that little mark was on the back of your hand and you said: "Nothing to be concerned about darling - it's just a little smear of poop," that she would respond with anything less than shock and immediately order you to the bathroom to wash your hands.

:If the handwashing that Jesus rejected was not merely "ceremonial", then why does the CBP analysis of that verse say: "The hand-washing was a ritual exercise, another part of the Pharisees' body of extra-Biblical regulations"?

:Obviously, if *you* object (to its deletion), I will not delete the section - but *you* should delete it. It is based on *your* opinion, and contradicts science, good sense and the hygiene laws God the Son (aka Jesus) gave to Moses in Leviticus 15. To leave the article as is may save your pride in here but invites scathing public mockery at the hands of someone like Stephen Colbert.

:Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 17:48, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

:: The tone of your comments surprises me. We resolve issues here based on reason. Of course the disciples were unaware of germs, but Jesus does seem to have been making a point about health and hygiene. Your example is inapplicable to the situation in the Bible, or most meals. If the [[CBP]] translation needs improvement based on a reasoned analysis, then I'll improve it. In fact, I'll take a look at it now!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

::I mean no disrespect - I'm just a little frustrated - and I agree that we resolve issues here based on reason - which is why I'm frustrated because I and other conservative contributors to this article (doubtless smarter than myself) (above) see your POV as totally wrong. They have made many good arguments but you have vetoed them all.

::My example is in fact very applicable to the situation in the Bible. The people in the Bible were surrounded by farm animals and their excrement - and it would have been on their hands fairly frequently - it was certainly on their feet. In John 13:10 Jesus said that a "person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean..." clearly stating that a person is dirty unless he has had a bath. He said folks need to wash their feet (that they don't even eat with). Jesus didn't want to wash Peter's hands (or his head) before they ate because he (Peter) had already washed them when he had a bath and it was therefore unnecessary.

::Perhaps I should ask for a citation. The article states (under "Digestive System"): "It took many centuries before science caught up to the Bible on this." Would you (or anyone) please cite the scientific source that shows that hand washing is "typically unnecessary" and where science "caught up to the Bible". If such a thing is so, there must be a medical journal or scientific publication that it was taken from.

::(PS - on a totally unrelated note, the Biblical city of Gath (from where Goliath came) was in the news today - uncovered by archaeologists - further evidence of the authenticity of the Bible - that should be in the Conservapedia news).

::For your consideration. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 21:28, 11 July 2011 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

== Lifespan ==

The deletion of material was reverted. The deletion was of more insights than the comment could justify. Please discuss here if anyone wants to defend the deletion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, but obviously she was a woman, so I'm not sure if that point even matters. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi's age was disputed, and research after his death claims that he actually died at the ripe old age of 105, which is still impressive. [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 11:05, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the info, but the underlying point remains the same. I think Izumi's age is recognized by at least one authority to have been 120 years old.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:18, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::: What would it mean for Biblical scientific foreknowledge if a man lives to 121? Do you suggest that this cannot possibly occur, in accordance with the passage from Genesis? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:24, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::: Well, for starters, it hasn't happened in modern times. So the question is a bit like asking what a mathematician would say if someone proved 2+2=5.

:::: Beyond that, as in the math example, I'd look for possible explanations ... such as human error.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::: But if it were to happen in the future, and there was incontrovertible evidence of this lifespan, would a logical person be forced to reject the Bible? I think the answer is yes. I agree that this is akin to 2+2=5, but it is an important point to consider -- it is a scientifically testable prediction from the Bible, foreknowledge at its purest. Of course we as Christians know the result in advance, but perhaps this will convince some atheists. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 12:17, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Lance, you seem to be applying a higher [[double standard]] to the Bible than you do to math and science, both of which make predictions that for a variety of reasons (including human error) may encounter exceptions. No one would immediately throw out '''''all''''' of math or science because of merely one unexplained anomaly. Moreover, the anomaly you propose ''does not exist''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:07, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In math, one exception disproves a theorem. But I agree that this isn't the case in science. So maybe I should rework my question: "If lifespans over 120 years become commonplace in the future, must a logical person reject the Bible?" A scientific theory admitting many exceptions would be rejected. I am curious about your answer; again, mine is "yes". But of course I do not believe that this could ever happen.
:::::: True, this anomaly ''does not exist''. But, for an atheist, there is no obvious reason that it shouldn't: this is an illustration of the predictive power of the Bible. Considering counterfactual situations is an important part of any logical thinking, and I see no reason that we can't analyze the possibility.
:::::: I believe that this page would be considerably strengthened if it made specific and falsifiable claims about science not yet discovered. One such would be the assertion that typical human lifespans will never exceed 120 years. Are there any other instances of specific Biblical foreknowledge you can suggest which deal with topics still not understood by science today? (And whose falsity, though counterfactual, would provide a valid [[Counterexamples to the Bible|counterexample to the Bible]]) Such claims would prove without question the validity of the Bible to atheists who do not yet accept this. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
Didn't Moses live to be several hundred years old? If so that would be a biblical inconsistency--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:31, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

'''''Response to Lance and Cain''''': science isn't about speculation or "what if." It's about observation. This is a scientific entry, so it focuses on what is predicted and what is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:50, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:Point taken. Still, can we make some new specific predictions, based on the Bible, dealing with something not yet discovered by secular science? This would be more impressive than pointing out examples in hindsight.
:Perhaps it is only because of the timidity of earlier theologians towards making scientific predictions that quantum mechanics was not developed in the 7th or 8th century! The Biblical evidence for this subject is impressive. Let us not make this mistake again! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:01, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
::One suggestion -- CP has pointed out numerous flaws in the theory of relativity. Can we leverage Bible scientific foreknowledge (BSF) to find a superior replacement for Newtonian mechanics? Have any such BSF-inspired physical theories been posited before? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 15:06, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::Your suggestion about BSF-inspired theories is superb. Indeed, this is how several key scientists made breakthrough discoveries in the past. Please feel free to create a new entry in pursuit of your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:12, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::I was the one who originally removed the section, because the Bible gives several examples of individuals living longer than 120 years; Noah lived until 950, for example. I can provide citations to Biblical passages if needed; I guess I'm confused as to why this is controversial. --[[User:WillS|WillS]] 21:26, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::And Jesus lives forever. Your saintly exceptions don't disprove the rule, and certainly don't justify your removal of the biblical foreknowledge about average lifespan of man, and the average lifespan of a good-living man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 4 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::Ok, I see your point; God can obviously intervene to 'break the rules,' so Noah, Shem, and so on don't really count. Thanks for taking the time to explain, and I apologize for making an unwarranted deletion.--[[User:WillS|WillS]] 03:36, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

::::::: I want to point out that if you carefully study the passage which refers to the 120 year lifespan (Genesis chapter 6), it definitely implies that until that moment in history, human lifespan could have been longer, so it's no wonder than in Genesis 1-5 we read about people living much longer. Also, the "120" is not necessarily precise, much like many other numbers in the Bible (possibly due to rounding). --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:34, 5 October 2010 (EDT)

:::::::: Good point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:50, 6 October 2010 (EDT)

Andy, Jesus living forever doesn't break the 120years limit for several reasons, the simplest being the 'forever' part is in heaven, and only Earth years count, otherwise all who go to Heaven, and hence living forever, would also break the 120year limit. Also, Shigechiyo Izumi lived to be older than 120 years, living to be 120 years AND 237 days, hence, if the 120 years is a solid-limit (unlike TeacherEd's suggestion), then he would have broken the rule. And Jeanne Calment lived to be 122, so how does this not contradict the 120year limit? And also, I heard of a different interpretation to the passage mentioning the 120 year limit. When the Bible says "No one will live for more than 120 years", it could be referring to the Flood, which ocurred 120 years later, and that (with the exception of Noah's family), no one lived for another 120 years. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:27, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== End of the world edit ==

Reversion explained: this entry is about observation (science), so speculation about an end of the world doesn't work here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:04, 8 October 2010 (EDT)

== Miracles ==

God created the heavens and the earth. He created the laws of nature to regulate his creation and constrain the activities of man. For it is only the one true God himself who can transgress the laws of nature. God manifests his omnipotent being through miracles which defy naturalistic explanation. To seek materialistic explanations for miracles is to deny God, undermine faith and encourage atheism. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:09, 11 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your view, but miracles are probably best translated as "signs". They do not conflict with nature, but instead provide a window into its true underlying basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:02, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::That's an interesting suggestion -- never heard anything like it before. I don't buy it without some more evidence. If you want to use this translation you need a good case that ''every'' miracle has some kind of physical explanation. I am curious what you would suggest as naturalistic explanations for these "signs":
* Calming the storm (Mark 4:35 etc).
:Perhaps foreshadows knowledge of chaos theory, as Jesus arranges an inverse butterfly effect? By moving his pinky in just the right way he sets off air currents which calm the winds.
* Various healing and resurrection miracles.
:This has to be some kind of advanced medical technology -- any more specific suggestion? Nanobots?
* Coin in the fish's mouth (Matthew 17:24).
:I've got nothing on this one.
* Cursing the fig tree (Mark 11:12)
:I am not aware of any plant pathogens which act this quickly.
We must also explain miracles performed by others. For example:
* Parting the Red Sea
:What is the physics here? I am curious about your suggestions for all of these events, as I have always understood miracles as being outside the realm of scientific explanation. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 13:47, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:: [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Closemindedness]] against the [[Bible]] has impeded the advancement of science for thousands of years. Should it have really taken 1900 years to realize that [[leprosy]] is usually not contagious??? There's only one reason: many people close their mind to the insights of the Bible. Then open-minded folks like [[Isaac Newton]], who accepted that the Bible is right, have to move mountains to persuade them.

:: Nearly all of your examples above represent the triumph of order over disorder, which science discovered in the 20th century in the effect of the observer in bringing order to the chaotic wave function. For example, [[Jesus]]'s calming of the storm by observing it is the same effect as the collapse of the [[quantum mechanics|quantum mechanical]] wave function upon observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::Sure, maybe it is the same effect in some sense. But it sounds like you want what have normally been translated as "miracles" to be understood rather as "signs", events which, while remarkable, nonetheless take place within the confines of the usual laws of physics. Just because something leads to "greater order" doesn't mean it's actually physically possible: there must be some specific physical explanation for the calming of the storm, otherwise it is still a miracle.
:::The case of cursing the fig tree deserves particular attention, I think, because to my mind Jesus actually ''decreases'' order by killing the tree. I have previously understood this miracle as a demonstration of the divinity of Jesus because of his control over nature. How should this event be understood as a "sign"?
:::I am intrigued by your suggestion and approach it with an open mind. But without a specific naturalistic interpretation, a miracle is still a miracle, whether it increases order or not. If a supernatural explanation is still required I fail to understand why it should be called a "sign". --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:01, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::"Sign" is a more customary translation than "miracle". Beyond that, your criticism displays a [[double standard]]: why don't you require the same "physical explanation" before accepting [[quantum mechanics]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 12 November 2010 (EST)

:::::Thank you for the clarifications. Sorry for sidetracking this discussion -- I hope AmandaBunting will return to share her insights! --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 20:56, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::::::I admit that the cursing of the fig tree remains a mystery; it is unlike the other signs. I will look again at the [[KJV]], and the [[Conservative Bible Project]] rendition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:32, 12 November 2010 (EST)

::If miracles are simply "signs" that do not conflict with the laws of nature and a window into their true underlying basis, then they are clearly phenomenon that have not yet been adequately explained by science but may be in the future, as the understanding of the laws of nature advances.

::Explaining miracles as “signs” is an interesting insight, the comments to Luke 11:16 & 29 in the [[Conservative Bible Project|Conservapedia Bible]] translation (clearly the best contemporary modern English version because it accurately captures the original intent unlike other versions marred by [[liberal]] translation distortions) providing further clarification. However, ‘mighty works’ or ’work’ in the KJV (Matthew 13:58, 14:2, Luke 10:13, John 7:21, 15:24) is translated as ‘miracles’, the KJV ‘sign’ (Luke 11:16) is translated as ‘miracle’, ‘miracle’ occurs in both the KJV and the Conservapedia Bible translation (Luke 23:8 , John :2:11, 2:23, 3:2, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14, 6:26, 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12;18, 12:37) and the KJV (John 4:48) ‘signs and wonders’ is translated as ‘ miracles and signs’.

::Nevertheless, the feeding of five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes is clearly not normally possible. The laws of nature clearly show that water cannot be turned into wine any more than lead can be turned into gold and people are not able to walk on water. Jesus could perform such miracles because of the power God invested in him. Furthermore, the intense white, whiter than any bleach, radiant glow or ‘halo’ of Jesus and his clothing displays his Godliness and is not of natural origin. By explaining away those miracles as a skillful application of scientific foreknowledge reduces Jesus to the status of a gifted conjuror in possession of a collection of impressive party tricks. That is the kind of ‘logic’ atheists use to undermine the status of Jesus as the son of God.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 19:51, 13 November 2010 (EST)

:::"Conjurer", not "conjuror", and I see sarcasm in your second paragraph that does not help your argument. Why do you resist the position often taken by the [[KJV]], that Jesus's works were signs rather than "miracles"? Truth does not have exceptions, and neither does logic. The concept that God breaks laws from time to time is more problematic than the obvious truth that man has little understanding of nature to this day.

:::I doubt [[Isaac Newton]] would have insisted that something is impossible under the laws of nature as you do. Do you think you are better qualified than Newton to make such statements?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:38, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::I consider miracles to be acts that only God can perform, which usually transgress the laws of nature. I agree that miracles are 'signs', but a sign need not always be a miracle. Miracles are amongst the signs that God uses to point to Himself. As such, God's intervention through 'signs' does not necessarily have to break the laws of nature. The miracles of Jesus are a visible manifestation of divine power, a wonder is an awe-inspiring spectacle and a sign is an instructive revelation about God, which may also be in the form of a miracle or wonder.

::::"He [God] is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be done [...] we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion, for we adore him as servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes is nothing else but Fate and Nature."
::::(Sir Issac Newton, Principia mathematica 1687)
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 23:26, 13 November 2010 (EST)

::::: I don't see the point of claiming that miracles "transgress the laws of nature." Your quote from Newton doesn't support that view; quite the contrary, Newton is saying that God "knows all things that are or can be done." This suggests that what are called miracles are illustrations of what can be done ... if and when our [[faith]] is stronger.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:00, 14 November 2010 (EST)

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

It seems that there is a very basic misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics on this page. I will try and explain it as simply as I can.
If something works at subatomic and atomic levels, (i.e. particles), it does not mean that a system of particles ( i.e. a body, or a liquid) will also act in this fashion. That idea will be fundamental in my explaining of why each post in the Quantum Mechanics subsection, is not right. I will also address some other points.

'''Observation of Wave function'''
As far as I'm aware, wine has a different cocktail of particles in it to water. Water being mainly Hydrogen and Oxygen, while wine has hydro-carbons in the form of alcohol, and about 7% other chemicals. Now I'm well aware that the chemical composition of the substances is not Quantum Mechanics, but it is important for understanding why the 'foreknowledge' falls down. Water and Wine are two different substances. On its own, water will not be able to turn into wine, whether or not it is observed. The last problem is one which I addressed at the start, that is the Wave function collapse, supported by observation, is something was used in single ONE ON ONE PARTICLE INTERACTIONS, from my nowhere near complete grasp of it. I may be wrong in that last statement, but that doesn't mean I am wrong in what I'm saying. If it were shown that water could turn into wine by this method then I will accept it, but as far as I'm aware, that has not happened yet.

'''Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle'''
Yet again it is being assumed in this section that the Physics of the very small apple to the physics of the larger scales. This is not true (yet, though theoretical physicists are looking to unify the last fundamental force (gravity) to quantum mechanics, but that is something different altogether). Then there is the fact that the first given passage could not have been observed (as no human was present at that time, and it probably didn't happen that way, but that is a different argument and only my, and many respected scientists, and many others, views). The second passage shows more common sense than a foreknowledge to the uncertainty principle.

'''Wave Particle Duality'''
I addressed this in my first post, but Andy Schlafly called it basic, and said there are other types of waves. Since I know have time to formulate a proper reply. First of all the point I made is not basic, it is a fundamental problem with your theory, as for a PARTICLE of mass 70kg , moving at speed 2ms-1, the wavelength would have to be ~4.735*10-36, no matter what type of wave that the particle was. However, I did make one other assumption that I did not specify. That assumption was that Jesus was acting like a particle. This I know to be impossible, because Jesus, like every thing larger than a single particle, is a system of particles, thus complicating the matter, because I would have to calculate the average wavelength, using a very conservative estimate on the number of particles, a rough guess on the mass of those particles, go against the uncertainty principle by having to know where the particles began, and their velocities at that point, reasonably accurately. Even with knowledge, the final wavelength would not be observable from certain angles, because he would be a wave, not a system of particles. But that is too complicating to attempt. The main problem is the same as with the others in this 'Quantum Mechanics' section, that I have already addressed.

==Second Law of Thermodynamics==
In the article it stated the the second law of thermodynamics agrees with assertion in Genesis that "the darkness or chaos in the universe can never overcome the light, or order" Yet the second law states that entropy never decreases it must always be increasing or remain constant for an isolated system. So energy must always move from an area of high energy to an area of low energy. So given an ever expanding universe the total energy density must always be decreasing, therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics guarantees that darkness and chaos will always overcome light and order over time, which is a direct contradiction of the assertion made in Genesis not a confirmation. Source- Thermodynamic Class every Monday and Wednesday

'''Quantum Tunnelling'''
Firstly Tunnelling has two 'l's, but that is beside the point, the same fundamental flaw is still happening, and I am getting bored explaining why it is stupid to make that assumption.
Now for something completely different (to quote The Flying Circus (Monty Python))

'''Nature of Air'''
This, to me, seems more like Job describing the force of the wind, rather than the fact that air has mass (completely different to weight, as weight is acceleration due to gravity, and a force). This passage is also defining wind, not air, so it can't really be claimed that it is foreknowledge of air having a mass.

'''Water Cycle'''
I am more inclined to believe that the passages (which say basically that it rains when there are clouds) is observation based due to the fact that the chance of it starting to rain when there are no clouds is very low, but when it does rain, there are clouds. Now it doesn’t take take someone who is a genius (or divinely inspired) to come to the conclusion that clouds hold water (this isn't completely true as clouds are made up of mainly (totally?) water. As for the bit about the water coming from the sea, that would be another reasonable, and logical, conclusion, as the largest bodies of water are seas and oceans.
'''
Stellar proper movement'''
Just because it happens, doesn't mean that God must be doing it. I am sure that science can explain it now, but, as it says in the section, it is a challenge, not something that was observed, (may be wrong on that, but if I am, at the time of writing this I was not aware otherwise). I would be willing to assume that the questions (challenges) were hypothetical, and not actually observed at that time.

'''Darkness and Unexplained Ripples in Cosmic Background Radiation'''
First of all, the darkness. This is explained by red-shift, i.e. the original 'explosion' happened so long ago that the visible light from it has red-shifted into the microwave wavelengths (which are still light waves). As for the 'Unexplained Ripples' they are explained, just not accepted by people who have been indoctrinated into believing the bible, and not completely accepted by the whole scientific community (not completely sure, but I think most cosmologists and theoretical physicists accept it, i.e. some of the most intelligent people on earth). However, the theory, is supported by evidence (unlike most of the bible), and does explain most 'problems' with light being so far away, and us being able to see galaxies, which no creationist theory does yet.

'''Geology'''
The link doesn't actually specify a global flood, just fast melting parts of the ice caps from previous ice ages (actually one example of said flood in one area of the world) my opinion of the flood is simply there isn't enough water on the world to cover every land mass.

'''Number of stars'''
I know I talked about this before, but I'm not sure I explained what I meant properly. I was talking about how it is sometimes easier to assume a number, because there is too many to count on a single night. Now days, if we had to time, we could probably count every single 'Star' in the sky, but most of those stars are actually galaxies. And the longer we expose space telescopes, like the Hubble, on a specific part of space, we can see more galaxies in that area of space (see Hubble ultra deep field). So we can't accurately count the number of actual stars in galaxies, hence it easier to assume that it is innumerable, though not infinite.

As to the rest of your supposed 'Foreknowledge', my opinion is that it is either so obvious that it was common knowledge, (like I said in my last post, because science hasn't explained something at that time, it doesn't mean it is God's work), or it is people trying to fit science to the bible and vice versa. Simple but my opinion is that science can explain everything we can observe better than the bible, and there isn't any foreknowledge in it.

I am well aware that this is a Christian site, and that a large number of users believe in the young earth 'Theory' of creation. I however am an atheist (if you didn't work that out, it says a lot), who was willing to help, (see my post on best new conservative words talk page). Unfortunately, I have little patience for people who refuse to use science correctly. Or who make claims about something, without fully understanding the basic principles needed to support that claim (quantum mechanics section).

You may call me closed minded, you may tell me to open my mind up to the bible, but, now days, a mind that is closed to the bible is better than a mind that is blinded by it. Also in-case you do tell me to open my mind, from the True definitions section of www.newspeakdictionary.com “Open-Minded -. One who vigorously attacks anyone that isn't as closed-minded as themselves.”

To finish I would like to be removed as an editor on this site, and my account to be deleted, because I do not think I can add any logical input to this site, as it seems to disregard logic, and use the process of doublethink to assume the bible is logically sound, while disregarding and illogical things in it, search the net and you will find them. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:50, 13 November 2010 (EST)

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)
:: Mr. Aschlafly, if what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid on larger scales, what is your issue with evolution, given the fact that opponents of the theory of evolution seek to polarize the theory into "macro" and "micro" evolution. This is only relevant because many opponents of macro-evolution find no qualm with micro-evolution and actually assert that while the former is suspect, the latter is completely sound in theory. At what point do you draw the line and say that one thing is valid at the microcosm through to the macro-level and another thing is not and how are you qualified to make such a statement? [[User:ReginaldP|ReginaldP]] 16:22, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::Once evolution was discredited, [[atheists]] began playing semantics and redefined "evolution" in a meaningless way, to be "change over time." Faced with semantic game-playing by the atheists, some responded by drawing a distinction between "macro" and "micro". Semantics was used to respond to semantics. It's better to recognize and reject falsehoods rather than try to patch them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:10, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::Reginald P, I believe you are confusing extrapolation with specificity: while the same rules apply to an apple as a planet, micro and macro evolution are different tendancies acting on distinct systems within distinct environments. Therefor, you are misapplying logic to achieve misleading readers. -ADW

== Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? ==

I'm all for the ice mummy confirming the Great Flood but I thought scientific dating methods were, for the most part, based on flawed assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because now that I think of it, fluctuations in the rate of decay may have occurred during the flood and have remained stable since the time of this Ice mummy.

: I'm not aware of objections to short-term dating methodologies, such as 5300 years. A difference in decay rates before the [[Great Flood]] compared with afterward would not affect the accuracy of measuring the age of someone frozen as part of the Great Flood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:20, 31 December 2010 (EST)

::No you're right Mr. Schlafly. Just as short term dating was effective with the Shroud of Turin, I don't see why it wouldn't also be effective here.[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:08, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::No, the short term dating was not effective with the [[Shroud of Turin]], because the sample had been contaminated. This defect was thoroughly demonstrated in a scientific, peer-reviewed article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:27, 1 January 2011 (EST)

::::You make a good point about contamination, Mr. Schlafly, but the Ice Mummy seems less likely to be contaminated due to its sheer mass, the variety of sources tested, etc. I would guess from what we know that this is a genuine reinforcement of the Great Flood. Even if it is contaminated, there simply isn't another time period where it would logically fit in to a reasonable Creationist system. ---ADW

:::::The ice mummy was frozen, so I can't even see the possibility for contamination. In contrast, the sample taken for testing from the [[Shroud of Turin]] had much identifiable contamination, such as melted material, on it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:56, 1 January 2011 (EST)

:::::::Another good point, Mr. Schlafly: an object sealed in an unbroken piece of solid (glacial-grade?) ice for it's entire history is probably the safest archeological find possible, contaminant wise.--ADW

== Social Sciences ==

I know that the Bible provides excellent forewarning on various sociological phenomena such as radical agendas seen in today's liberalism, authoritarian society seen in Nazi Germany, and false leaders seen in manipulative political demagogary. The question is, do these warning constitute a ''scientific'' statement, ie "social ''sciences''", or merely political warnings? If the former, then perhaps they are needed in this article to make it even more informative and relavent.--ADW

== Shroud of Turin ==

Though the shroud is mentioned in Luke 23:53, Mark 15:46 and Matthew 27:59, there is no mentioning of an image (negative or positive). Therefore, the [[Shroud of Turin]] is at best an '''extra'''-Biblical example of scientific foreknowledge. I will remove it from the article.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:34, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:The Bible mentions the Shroud several times, and it has apparently been long available for scientific and public review. Note also that one of the Gospels describes the Shroud as lying on the ground in a way that implies the process of the [[Resurrection]] itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:08, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::''The Bible mentions the Shroud several times'' Indeed, the σινδών is mentioned three times (as I stated above. We know that it was made from linen, but no picture is mentioned '''in the Bible'''. That's an important point as we are discussing [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]] and not ''scientifically advanced relics''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
::'''BTW''': Could you take a look [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]]? Thanks. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

:::I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. As to the Shroud issue, again I think you elevate form over substance: what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography. The answer is "yes", and hence this should be included along with the numerous other examples of [[Biblical scientific foreknowledge]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

::::*''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue'': I'm looking forward to your reply!
::::*''...again I think you elevate form over substance'' '''''again'''''? I prefer to think that I elevate facts over fiction! And I try to keep it civil.
::::*''what matters is whether an open-minded reading of the Bible and related evidence could have guided scientists to discover photography.'' That's the wrong way around: only ''after'' the discovery of photography the remarkable qualities of the [[Shroud of Turin]] could be observed!
::::*''The answer is "yes"'' In light of the preceding point: the answer is "no"
::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:31, 20 May 2011 (EDT)

:::::August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2400], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::Surely this isn't the ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3ABiblical_scientific_foreknowledge&action=historysubmit&diff=868549&oldid=868528 review and comment]'' which you were planning for two months?
::::::::''I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)''
::::::Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed [[Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)#Issue_with_translation_of_John_4:53|here]], I will take a closer look at your statement:
::::::'''''August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." ''''' It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for '''any''' reference, but for a '''meaningful''' reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:John_1-7_(Translated)&diff=next&oldid=862247 google count] of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Talk%3AJohn_1-7_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=862369&oldid=862252 April 18, 2011]:
::::::::''Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious ([[Talk:Matthew_20-28_(Translated)#ἰδού|here]] is bad enough. Getting me to make it ''blatantly'' obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about ''participation'', but about ''contribution''! --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
::::::Frankly, I expected your ''comment and review'' to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
::::::Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a '''meaningful''' reference, neither.
::::::'''''With one simple search...''''' this should have been a warning: you have tried ''simple searches'' before, and you failed.
::::::'''''...I found that it is translated as "when"...''''' Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as ''when'' by the NAS, the [[New American Standard Bible]]. Conservapedia states
::::::::''The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
::::::::''It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.

::::::'''''...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.''''' Yep, ''when'' can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"

::::::'''Summary: ''' On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a ''[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Matthew_20-28_%28Translated%29&action=historysubmit&diff=858739&oldid=757784 nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment"]''. Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.

::::::::Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

::::::(I had replied to this comment [[User talk:Aschlafly#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|elsewhere ]], but I didn't want to let it stay here seemingly unchallanged)

::::::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

== Section on bloodletting ==

I removed the section on bloodletting as it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge. ASchlafly reverted. So it seems like a discussion would be useful. In this case, the Bible shows no scientific foreknowledge. By noting that Jesus died more quickly than people usually did from crucifixion, Pontius Pilate is saying what happened. Not why it happened, nor what you would need to do in order to have someone else also die more quickly than usual. Saying "I'm surprised this happened" doesn't show that you know why it happened, it only shows that you know it happened. Because it doesn't demonstrate foreknowledge, it should be removed from the article. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:17, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:The [[Bible]] is providing valuable scientific data here. Sometimes a [[Nobel Prize]] is given based on the observation of data, even though the data are not yet well understood by the recipients of the Prize. If observing data can be enough for a Nobel Prize, then why can't it be enough for the Bible?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
::Such as when? And I highly doubt that observation alone would be enough for any scientific prize. The recipient would have had to have demonstrated why it happened, or at least how to replicate it. Neither of which Pontius Pilate did. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::A Nobel Prize for blackbody radiation from the [[Big Bang]] was given based on the mere observation of data, without requiring the recipients to demonstrate a full understanding of an underlying theory behind it. Indeed, many Nobel Prizes are given more for experiments than theory, such as the Nobel Prize for the transistor.

:::You keep referring to Pontius Pilate but it was the Bible and its authors who observed and published the data. Too bad many scientists didn't study the Bible with an open mind. If they had, then a greater scientific understanding would have been achieved earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::However, Mather and Smoot (who won that prize) won it for a discovery, which means they knew what to do to replicate the results. They didn't necessarily understand why they got the results, but they knew what to do to get them again. They knew that "When you do this, this happens", the results are replicable. Whereas saying that Jesus died more quickly than others usually did doesn't indicate knowledge of how to replicate it. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 00:48, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::: How about the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]] as another example? I don't think they understood the results, yet it is perhaps the most famous experiment in history. And it did not require replication.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Michelson did get the 1907 Nobel Prize for it, but the citation did not mention the relativity interpretation. The first person to understand the experiment was FitzGerald in 1889. Einstein historians say that he did not grasp the importance of it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:42, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Right, and surely all would agree that Michelson deserved to win that Nobel Prize whether he understood the reasons for his results or not.

::::::: But imagine if Michelson's results were written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal. Most scientists would be ignoring it to this day!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:17, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Two things - firstly, there's a difference in repeating an experiment, and knowing how to repeat it. Just because an experiment hasn't been repeated doesn't mean it can't. (Also, the Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated, at least by those who have developed alternative theories to relativity). Secondly, both the blackbody radiation experiment, and the Michelson-Morley experiment show an understanding of 'if we do this, then this happens.' Whereas simply noting that Jesus died quicker than people usually do, doesn't. For it to demonstrate foreknowledge, then the Bible would have to say that BECAUSE he lost a lot of blood first, he died quicker. Which the Bible doesn't say. Also, with regards to if the M-M results had been written up in a religious tract instead of a scientific journal, since when has a religious book included a description of an experiment they performed? And as an interesting idea, could you come up with a list of things the Bible says demonstrating scientific knowledge that science hasn't discovered yet? Caus if science would benefit from taking advice from the Bible, then ideally some scientific breakthroughs should be predictable? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 01:36, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== Predictive power of Biblical scientific foreknowledge ==

What is the predictive power of the Bible? What specific predictions does it make that can be tested? Before it happens, not after-the-fact. For example, what does the Bible say about the Higgs boson? Does the Bible predict it exists and, if so, what is its mass? Or the [[P=NP]] problem in computing. Where does the Bible stand on that?

The article says "Had scientists and physicians been more openminded about Genesis 2:21 (perhaps they had considered it a miracle, and thus impossible for humans to achieve), they may have discovered anesthesia far sooner, and saved many more lives." Is anyone here reading the Bible to find the cure for cancer? That would save millions of lives. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:13, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

:There are enough examples here to demonstrate that reading the Bible with an open mind advances science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:01, 22 October 2011 (EDT)
:: Well, then you can surely tell me some future scientific discoveries by reading the Bible. What does it have to say about Higgs bosons? [[P=NP]]? Cure for cancer? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 20:46, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

::: I have already given an example: the biblical insight that the speed of light is not an absolute barrier to the transmission of information. This was included as one of the [[Counterexamples to Relativity]] here before the experiment confirming it startled atheistic scientists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:::: Are you claiming that the Bible predicted faster-than-light neutrinos? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 02:32, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Sociology ==

A new section on sociology was added, which claimed that the vast majority of crimes are solved. This is not the case. In the US in 2010, 65% of manslaughters are prosecuted, 40% of rapes, 28% of robberies. See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/clearances for the information. Note: the statistics are on the crimes, not the people arrested. ie. a person commits 3 crimes, and are arrested. It's counted as 3 solved crimes. And if 5 people jointly commit a crime, and they are arrested, it's counted as 1 solved crime. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 23:02, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I don't know nearly enough about crime statistics to comment, but I think an important detail you've missed is that the article specifically refers to crimes ''worldwide'', not merely crimes in the United States. Your source is the FBI and specifically says "crime in the US," which obviously creates a discrepancy between your claim and the article. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:14, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
::JamesCA, you are ruining the old adage ''crime doesn't pay''. If what you're saying adds up, then a person is more likely to get away with crime than to get caught. A break down of individual crimes is gonna lead everywhere. One year's data is not a good indicator. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:41, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:::With certain crimes someone is more likely to get away with the crime, than to get caught. It's unfortunate, but that doesn't make it any less true. I've looked at the stats for other years - '06: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/clearances/index.html, '07: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '08: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html, '09: http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.html. And these all show similar statistics. I also looked for stats on other countries (including trying EU, MI5 and Interpol websites), but couldn't find any. Does anyone have any statistics showing that most crimes are solved (in other countries or worldwide)? - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 02:41, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Whatever the case, the article could always be reworded to include the unofficial punishments for crimes. Regardless of whether or not the majority of crimes worldwide are solved, other punishments exist. The quoted passage of Mark may also be referring to God's knowledge of our crimes, or the internal punishments we inflict on ourselves. Have you ever read Dostoyevsky's work, ''Crime and Punishment''? The psychological effects of committing a crime are well known to psychologists, regardless of whether or not the crime itself is solved by authorities. Those all sound like strong reasons for why crime doesn't pay! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:06, 16 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Then in that case it should come under psychology, rather than sociology. And I agree that the passage refers to God's knowledge of everything about us, including our crimes, and that we can't hide anything from God. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 09:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Calvin's argument ==

''"How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christ's death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet? This fact undoubtedly deserved to be recorded. St John, in his Gospel, relates even how St Peter, having entered the sepulchre, saw the linen clothes lying on one side, and the napkin that was about his head on the other; but he does not say that there was a miraculous impression of our Lord's figure upon these clothes, and it is not to be imagined that he would have omitted to mention such a work of God if there had been any thing of this kind."''

Calvin didn't need to inspect to shroud to make this statement - he argues based on ''sola scriptura''. And he seems to be the first one to use this line of thought, which makes it at least a historically interesting observation, but even more, many Protestants seem to follow his reasoning: the Shroud of Turin isn't recognized unanimously! So, I think this belongs at least into the footnote, if not the article itself.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:31, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

:Calvin was biased against ''any'' relic, and anything perceived to be associated with the Catholic Church. His statement does not even make much sense - the image on the Shroud is in a hard-to-see negative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 October 2011 (EDT)

== Missing David Macht's work published by John Hopkins plus indoor air pollution issue ==

I do believe in the concept of Bible scientific foreknowledge, although not all of the alleged examples given in the article. With that being said, the article is missing some of the best examples of Bible scientific foreknowledge such as David Macht's work published by John Hopkins which has to do with food toxicity. Also, the issue of indoor air pollution through mold. I suggest reading this article which will allow you to include this information plus give other examples as well I am guessing: http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge 01:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That's an interesting entry taking a different approach, providing different examples. The references to food in that entry are insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:47, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

==Cloning==

According to this page, God cloned Eve from Adam's rib. But this immediately causes a problem. If Eve was cloned from Adam, then the two are genetically identical. As such, their children would have been identical to them genetically, since combining two identical genetic sequences from breeding gives the same sequence again. And yet now, all people are not identical. In fact, no two people (as far as we can tell) are genetically identical. So where did all this genetic diversity come from? The diversity can only have come from mutations of the gene. Given people like William Lane Craig (incredibly intelligent and erudite), Chuck Norris (physically amazing) and Roger Bannister (broke the 4 minute mile) it seems clear that these genetic mutations have produced new, advantageous genes - that is, mutations have produced new information. Any thoughts on this? [[User:swinefish|swinefish]] 14:14, 03 November 2011 (CAT)

:Your argument is insightful, but it doesn't follow that the mutations were helpful. The intelligence of Adam and Eve was likely greater than that of their descendants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 3 November 2011 (EDT)

::First, can you give me a biblical reference for the superior intelligence of Adam and Eve? Second, they would have had to have been superior in every measurable way to every human who has ever existed in order to claim that mutations are never advantageous. I'm not aware of any Bible verse (or even of any church tradition) claiming this. Thirdly, even if Adam and Eve were superior, my claim that information was produced by mutation still stands. The wealth of different humans attest to the new information. After all, even degenerate information remains information. For example, if one plagiarised The Lord of the Rings, one would likely produce a far inferior work, but one that would undoubtedly be information. --[[User:Swinefish|Swinefish]] 11:40, 5 November 2011 (EDT)

== One problem ==

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

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

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

==Grand Unified Theory... what!?==
"''But Genesis explains that the creation of light was done in a separate, initial creation, free of darkness or entropy, and thus incapable of unification with matter.''" So did God specifically separate visible light out from the rest of the EM spectrum, or did He create x-rays, gamma rays, radio waves, electricity and magnetism at the same time? Seems to me if light was a separate creation it wouldn't rest in the middle of the current electromagnetic spectrum, was it shoehorned in later? I'm not sure what to make of what I'm reading here. Further explanation is required. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:38, 25 February 2012 (EST)

==Section or new article on future knowledge==

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

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

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

== GUT ==

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

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

Talk:Evolution

2012-03-01T17:48:46Z

JeremyK: /* Doctors poll results */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)
:Hi again. As no-one has raised an objection I'm assuming that it's ok to go ahead and make this change? --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2012-03-01T17:46:10Z

JeremyK: Added new wntry on predictions

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-02-29T16:26:23Z

JeremyK: Changed

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. Either way, the statement is invalid as there is reasonable concern that the results are inaccurate. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can always re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

Conservapedia proven right

2012-02-29T16:25:00Z

JeremyK: Removed one example, as agreed with Andy Schafly.

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup, even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a "Jon Stewart Curse" that he brings to all his movies." <ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids are clueless.
|His subsequent hosting of the Oscars in 2008 set the modern record for its smallest number of viewers, and he has not starred in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and in 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]] and [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama and even comparisons to the caring and suffering servant Messiah [[Jesus Christ]] are made. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf and takes lavish vacations and Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal establishment are increasingly souring on Obama and even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In 2011, in a foul mouthed diatribe [[Penn Jillette]] makes a lame excuse on why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. For more information please see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Sept. 19, 2010
|[[Newt Gingrich]] is the most [[Presidential Election 2012|likely to win the Republican nomination for President]]<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=819261</ref>
|Liberals, who have long opposed Gingrich, wrote him off as a candidate in mid-2011
|Newt leads in national polls and several key primary states
|November 2011
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 20, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=918691</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] because this illustrates a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|Counterexample to an Old Earth]].
|Earthquakes then repeatedly strike, causing unnecessary deaths and public outrage at the lack of precautionary measures to fortify or evacuate buildings.
|October and November 2011
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|}

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-02-29T16:23:35Z

JeremyK: /* Neutrinos and the speed of light */

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

:The issue remains unresolved, rather than the claim by the scientists having been proven false. Feel free to edit accordingly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 29 February 2012 (EST)

::Thanks for the help Andy. Sorry, I'm new so I thought I would ask. I will delete it for now as it will save face for Conservapedia. But if the anomaly is still present (as some physicists believe it will be), then we can always re-insert it.--[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 11:23, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-02-29T15:47:09Z

JeremyK: added new discovery about neutrinos

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Neutrinos and the speed of light ==

The article claims that Conservapedia's prediction about the theory of General Relativity being wrong was proven by Neutrinos travelling faster that the speed of light. It has recently been found that this is in fact false, the accuracy of the measurements was affected by a loose fibre optic cable <ref>http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp</ref>. Shall I remove this claim?

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Gay penguin ==

Isn't it possible (and indeed more likely) that the penguin was never gay in the first place? I can't really picture one penguin (peacefully or otherwise) convincing another penguin to change from his ways. There are no penguin therapy support groups. Either way, Conservapedia is right about the gay animal myth (either he's an ex-homosexual or he never was one in the first place). But I do think that possibility is worth mentioning. I'm not sure how to word it though. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:44, 9 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Evolution

2012-02-29T15:33:37Z

JeremyK: Added a question about the polling of doctors on evolution

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_2|Set 2 of Archives]]
|}
{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
|}

__TOC__

== Doctors poll results ==

I don't think this poll is appropriate to include. How many doctors have to study evolutionary biology? They don't, it's not relevant to their medical knowledge to have an advanced understanding of evolution.

For what it's worth you might as well say x% of engineers/policemen/politicians accept evolution. These people are all laymen in evolution, they will have the same level of understanding as people on the street. Why not include a poll taken from people who really have to understand evolution for their work, such as geneticists/archaeologists/biologists/etc? That would be far more applicable, don't you agree?

I suggest the poll is either removed as it asks people who are unsuitable to answer the question, or we use a new poll that includes suitable people. I would be more than happy to provide more suitable polls for you to use in your article if you wish :-). --[[User:JeremyK|JeremyK]] 10:33, 29 February 2012 (EST)

== Houston, we have anti-evolutionism campaign lift off ==

News item: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-question-evolution-campaign.html Houston, we have anti-evolution campaign lift off]
[[File:Rocket.jpg|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

:Why is Conservative allowed to link to his own personal website? This isn't the place for his spam, and its not like the site has any new or interesting information about it. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 15:16, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Factual error ==

Evolution itself has been confirmed as fact. The mechanism of evolution is what's still theory. Someone might want to fix this.[[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 14:56, 18 December 2011 (EST)
:I disagree, evolution has never been confirmed as fact. I suggest having a look at [[Counterexamples to Evolution]] --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:39, 18 December 2011 (EST)
::No, I'm quite serious, evolution itself (the concept that species change gradually over millions of years) has been proven as fact. The only thing that's a theory now is the mechanism of evolution. Just Google "Evolution in the Galapagos" and you can see for yourself. Also, most of the articles I've visited on Conservapedia are rife with inaccuracies, so I'm afraid an outside source is required if you want me to take your counter-claim seriously. [[User:Factcheck47|Factcheck47: Making sure Conservapedia stays Trustworthy]] 12:57, 19 December 2011 (EST)
:::I agree with FactCheck that referencing a Conservapeida page would be almost as bad as referencing a Wikipedia page, and that obviously I don't think anyone denies micro-evolution; it has been proven. However, I don't think saying, "Someone might want to fix this" is very constructive at all. Why don't you fix it? I don't believe that fact that FactCheck really wants to make sure "Conservapedia stays Trustworthy," in fact, I would speculate that Factcheck isn't a conservative at all. Most likely an atheist. Of course, this entire topic needs massive revision. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
::::He can't fix it because one of the sysops has protected this page and refuses to unprotect it. Mainly to prevent the massive revision it badly needs. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 10:36, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Oh--Sorry. Hmmmmm. He must be worried of vandalism or something. Maybe we can post here exactly what changes we would make were we able to, and then people with the authority can decide what to keep and what to throw out. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]]
:::::::The agnostic [[Carl Sagan]], who said he obtained his greatest scientific insights smoking marijuana, claimed evolution is a fact. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:36, 22 December 2011 (EST)
Yuck. What a hack. I hate pot-smokers almost as much as I hate agnostics (and I really hate agnostics--what a cop-out). Carl Sagan was certainly wrong--evolution could never be proven, but I think FactCheck47 was referring to what is called microevolution. That is the phenomenon observed with the Galapagos Finches. It will be important for us to distinguish upon this point because a lot of what liberals try to do is prove microevolution (which is fairly easy) and then conclude that all life must come from evolution (ridiculous). But if we get into an argument over whether or not microevolution exists we will lose. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 12:26, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Evolution as a theory or hypothesis ==
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Evolution is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.]]
As you can see from Karajou's image, the word "theory" indicates that evolution has been backed up by experimental evidence. However, this is not the case. I propose removing references to evolution as a theory and replacing with references to it as a "hypothesis", which is what it fits under. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 18:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi, I don't believe in evolution, but it's not fair to say it hasn't been tested. It certainly hasn't been proven, and we should focus on that. And I would say it is falsifiable, for example if fossils didn't exist, they would be hard pressed (of course evolutionists would probably try to argue it anyways no matter what the actual evidence says). Anyways, the most famous such test would be the 'Chromosome fusion hypothesis,' which is an axillary hypothesis to they theory of evolution, which predicts chromosome fusion in one of the human chromosomes; it was confirmed in 2004. The paper is easy to find, albeit technical. Here's the youtube link by one of the authors of the paper:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 11:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::NickP, excellent point. That is addressed here: http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Unqualified_to_be_a_scientific_theory Second, theory has a number of definitions. Third, a lot of people are finding the article by doing search engine searches vis a vis "theory of evolution" and since there is more than one definition of theory, I think it is better to leave it the way it is. However, in a few minutes, I will create article space for you to address this issue and then I can link to the article within the [[evolution]] page. Give me a few minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:06, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Here are some articles that could be created: [[Evolution as hypothesis]],[[Evolution is a religion]], [[Evolution disproved]], [[Disproving evolution]], [[Evolution and Karl Popper]], [[Evolution is a lie]] and [[Evolution is a deception]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:25, 21 December 2011 (EST)
::::Those are good ideas for articles that can be linked to from here. I'll try to help where I can, but I can't say biology is my strength, so I'm not sure how useful I'll be. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:33, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No big deal. I have a lot of irons on the fire now anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:40, 21 December 2011 (EST)

Perhaps I did not study this article closely enough, but in it I saw nothing pertaining to the Hardy Weinberg Principle. Because the Hardy Weinberg Principle is essential to understanding why such a good number of evolutionists believe what they do, I would urge for it to be included in this article. --X. Dulks
:Well, I'm not sure because the article isn't about how evolution works or why people might believe it. If you want, you could create a [[Mechanisms of Evolution]] page or something like that. I guess you could even create a [[Why some people might believe in Evolution]] page, as long as you were super careful to follow the Conservapedia guidelines. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 18:30, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::A well done [[Mechanisms of microevolution]] article would be an excellent article and be much more encyclopedic/less speculative.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:46, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Yes good point. The article should be [[Mechanisms of microevolution]]. The "microevolution" v "Evolution" is indeed important. Actually, there is already a [[Natural selection]] article, and I believe an inclusion of the Hardy Weinberg Principle there would be good as well if not entirely sufficient in itself. I don't know if X. Dulks wants to take that on. [[User:Scottma|Scottma]] 13:44, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism ==
[[File:Eagle and fish.jpg|thumbnail|right|400px|A supporter of the [[Question evolution! campaign]] writes: "Feeble goal setting is fitting for passive and apathetic evolutionists, but not for Bible believing Christians. In 2012, our group desires to soar like eagles and make evolutionary dogma our prey."[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html]
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/linda-schaible/6063077714/ Flickr], Title: Lock&Dam14-Bald Eagle & Fish, Flicker username: LAShibes, see: [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/making-2012-worst-year-in-history-of.html Making 2012 the worst year in the history of Darwinism]