Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-06-10T14:35:02Z

NItramNos: confusion about term "evolutionist"

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, "That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory." It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Actually [[RSchlafly]] the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, not a "hunch." String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I accept the NAS definition, but where is the proof that scientists use the term "theory" differently from others? They don't. A lot of physicists use the term "String Theory", if not all. Are you saying that they are wrong? Does the NAS say that they are wrong? The article promotes a phony distinction that is not recognized by the vast majority of scientists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I propose replacing the definition in this article with one that conforms more closely to dictionaries and common usage. I suggest:
: A Scientific Theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory.
: A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as String Theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds pretty good, I'm all for it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking and reverting ==

Why is my version of the article being reverted? I see no fault in it. If you wish to block it, I request that you please give reason.

'''Reason''': Because you are a mindless liberal vandal. Oooooooo. Anything else? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

My version got reverted too! The true reason is that the crazy fundamentalists behind this website can't handle the truth. They have to twist it a little bit so that it doesn't contradict the infallible (yeah right) bible. Sorry guys but evolution is real and there's nothing you can do about it! {{unsigned|Thoth}}

== Reorganization ==

I broke the existing entry into two paragraphs, and added mention of Scientific Laws. Sources still need to be cited (specifically for the first statement. Would the person who wrote the original article cite that?). [[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (CST)

==Advocacy==

Cut:

:The concept of scientific theory has come under fire from fundamentalist Christians who don't accept the theory of evolution. The recurring argument is that "it's not fact. It's only a theory" but as shown here in a scientific theory is something that is supported by fact. It's a verified hypothesis and thus in science theory and fact don't stand in opposition.

This is not encyclopedic<s>, it's not even spelled right</s>. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:This could be expanded on at [[Theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolutionists ==
Palpable pap! Among scientists there are no "evolutionists", which is a term made up by the pseudo-scientists of Creationism. Read the quotes in the article. It refers to scientists, not evolutionists, and those scientists include geologists, astronomers, physicists and chemists. NitramNos 16:18, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: No, that is not the origin of the term. Yes, the quotes refer to scientists. They are examples of evolutionists talking about scientists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:42, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::I beg to differ (along with the rest of the scientific community). They are examples of scientists talking about scientists. You are confused by the nonsense propagated by non-scientists and evangelical scientists. There is no such thing as an evolutionist. The misinformation on this site about what science is and what scientists do boggles the scientific mind. Perhaps that is why there are Natural History Museums, and then there are Creationist museums. NitramNos 15:52, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

::: If you had the scientific community on your side, then you'd be able to cite some sources. You can find the word "evolutionist" in the dictionary. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 10:11, 10 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess your confusion, RSchlafly, lies in the fact that you conflate the profession of a biologist who specializes in the study of evolution (an "evolutionist") with all scientists who accept the Theory of Evolution as the unifying theory of all the life sciences, and make observations, perform experiments and publish their findings on that basis. Scientist studying the mutations of a flu virus, scientists studying a troop of baboons, and scientists classifying new plants discovered in the Amazon may all rely on the Theory of Evolution to predict and explain much of what they observe, but they are not evolutionists as defined by the dictionary. You, however, use the term to include any scientist who accepts the Theory of Evolution as fact. That is ann error. NitramNos 10:35, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-10T14:13:42Z

NItramNos:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives''' [[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

|}

== RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations ==

I wish to file a complaint about the deletion of an edit I wrote for the [[Censorship]] topic. RobS falsely accuses me of subterfuge and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda when I described one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, and one of the first instances (if not the first) of censorship entering the law. I neither mentioned Catholics nor Jesuits, and pointed out that the Pope had actually defended Michelangelo and prevented defacement of his work of art. The reference I cited is not a wiki mirror site, but an educational web site with many sources for its articles. One has only to look at the page I referenced to see that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In spite of this, RobS has issued a warning on what I believe to be entirely unfounded complaints. Read the reference I sited, check its background, read my edit and let me know if RobS is justified in censoring my edit and issuing a warning. NitramNos 14:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why did you try to hide the wikimirror cite [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=193099&oldid=193061] after inserting a red link to [[Counter-Reformation]]? --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you are talking about. How would I hide a wikimirror cite? What does that have to do with inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? You sound paranoid to me. NitramNos 15:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:::So you wish to make charges, yet not respond to (a) my specific Warning in the edit summary; (b) my recitation of it here. This comes dangerously close to trolling. Again, why did you hide the wikimirror, and why do you deny it that it is not when anyone can see that it is?

:::And if you can't answer those questions, you have indeed trolled me by wasting my time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to get involved in this, but I think I see your confusion - Just to clarify, NitramNos, the wikimirror RobS refers to is the link to http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm which, like eg Answers.com, is simply a mirror of the wikipedia article of the same name. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you Fox. Can you tell me how to tell if a site is a wikimirror site? I am tired of being falsely accused and threatened by RobS. I am tired of the vandalism RobS perpetrates on perfectly valid additions to articles that follow all Conservapedia guidelines (although I admit I am in the dark about what sites and what sites are not the dreaded wikimirrorr sites). NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:NitramNos, you should be able to tell if a site has copied articles from Wikipedia by looking for somewhere on the page where they say so. Wikipedia material is copyrighted under the GNU licence, which means (among other things) that other sites can copy it, but ''must acknowledge'' that it came from Wikipedia. It's always possible, of course, that a site might copy it without acknowledging it (thus breaking the law), but normally it will be acknowledged, so look for that acknowledgement; that's how you can tell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::I get it. I will certainly check for the GNU license information at the bottom next time I choose a reference. Thank you. But while we're on the subject of accusations, how do you explain RobS's constant accusations of subterfuge and "trying to hide a wikimirror." And accusations of being anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit? Accusations that I am a troll and engaged in vandalism? I apologize for my ignorance regarding wikimirrors. The accusations against me go a good deal farther than that, and I believe they are way out of line. NitramNos 21:59, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::The clock is running on NitramNos. The lesson to be taken from all this is, the bigotry that Wikipedia is known for ''will not'' be imposed on us here. We shall determine our own content, from constuctive and cooperative editors, not trolls attempting to spoon feed us wiki-pap during the incessant vandalism intended to distract us. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

If this page is designed solely for the abuse of complainants by those about whom they are registering a complaint, it is not performing a very useful function. RobS would seem to be the troll in this instance. NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:You have not answered the question. The material came from Wikipedia. Why did you hide the wikimirror? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

::On the contrary, you have not answered my question. What do you mean that I "tried to hide the wikimirror?" I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and suspect that you are letting your paranoid imagination run away with you. How does one "hide a wikimirrror?" How does one "try to hide a wikimirror" and fail? What does that have to do with "inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation?" What are you talking about? Could someone enlighten me as to what RobS is getting at, as he seems unable or unwilling to clue me in? NitramNos 17:37, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I have just finished comparing the page from which I drew my material on Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page on the same topic. They are organized differently, worded differently, and have a dfferent focus. Obviously, as they are both about the same historical individual, they contain some of the same information. Equally obviously they were written by different individuals. My conclusion, and that of any reasonable person, is that it is definitely NOT a wikimirrror, and RobS's charges are entirely unfounded. I would suggest that Conservapedia has a loose cannon on its hands in the person of RobS and that his arbitrary and rather wild accusations will prove to be an embarrassment. NitramNos 18:21, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You need to be a lot more cautious in accusing people. Ask questions to find out if perhaps ''you'' are wrong before throwing around accusations. You might think that you have a watertight argument here regarding Wikipedia, but you do not. As Fox has (and now I have) explained above, it ''says'' that it has copied the material from Wikipedia, so that in itself makes it very hard for you to argue otherwise. But the real point is that you have not ruled out (and this is almost certainly the case) that it was copied from ''an earlier version'' of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't read the same ''now'', but Wikipedia articles keep changing of course.
::::By the same token, many others tend to throw around accusations too freely too, often assuming that the person that they are criticising understands more than they actually do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Right here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=193249] bottom of the page,

*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

Last chance to explain yourself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT
:Perhaps most telling is that RobS has not attempted at any point to dispute the FACTS. He resorts to technicalities and wild accusations to obscure the fact that all his sound and fury is designed to keep historically relevant information off the site for whatever personal reasons he may have. The topic is censorship. I added one of the better known and one of the most organized campaigns of censorship in history, and RobS has censored me. My error was ignorance of how to detect sites that borrow from Wikipedia. His error is to overreact and recklessly fling wild accusations of subterfuge and disinformation. NitramNos 10:13, 10 June 2007 (EDT)

==Crippes==
Crippes was a positive user with some good edits, but was still blocked. [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 16:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Crippes was blocked for creating a sock which caused some vandalism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::How would Duddgydids know--Duddgydids been here awhole two minutes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Quite possibly because he's a sock from the same source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the same as "Carlowcrab", [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 17:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Then what is your purpose here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-10T02:00:39Z

NItramNos: typos

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives''' [[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

|}

== RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations ==

I wish to file a complaint about the deletion of an edit I wrote for the [[Censorship]] topic. RobS falsely accuses me of subterfuge and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda when I described one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, and one of the first instances (if not the first) of censorship entering the law. I neither mentioned Catholics nor Jesuits, and pointed out that the Pope had actually defended Michelangelo and prevented defacement of his work of art. The reference I cited is not a wiki mirror site, but an educational web site with many sources for its articles. One has only to look at the page I referenced to see that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In spite of this, RobS has issued a warning on what I believe to be entirely unfounded complaints. Read the reference I sited, check its background, read my edit and let me know if RobS is justified in censoring my edit and issuing a warning. NitramNos 14:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why did you try to hide the wikimirror cite [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=193099&oldid=193061] after inserting a red link to [[Counter-Reformation]]? --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you are talking about. How would I hide a wikimirror cite? What does that have to do with inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? You sound paranoid to me. NitramNos 15:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:::So you wish to make charges, yet not respond to (a) my specific Warning in the edit summary; (b) my recitation of it here. This comes dangerously close to trolling. Again, why did you hide the wikimirror, and why do you deny it that it is not when anyone can see that it is?

:::And if you can't answer those questions, you have indeed trolled me by wasting my time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to get involved in this, but I think I see your confusion - Just to clarify, NitramNos, the wikimirror RobS refers to is the link to http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm which, like eg Answers.com, is simply a mirror of the wikipedia article of the same name. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you Fox. Can you tell me how to tell if a site is a wikimirror site? I am tired of being falsely accused and threatened by RobS. I am tired of the vandalism RobS perpetrates on perfectly valid additions to articles that follow all Conservapedia guidelines (although I admit I am in the dark about what sites and what sites are not the dreaded wikimirrorr sites). NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:NitramNos, you should be able to tell if a site has copied articles from Wikipedia by looking for somewhere on the page where they say so. Wikipedia material is copyrighted under the GNU licence, which means (among other things) that other sites can copy it, but ''must acknowledge'' that it came from Wikipedia. It's always possible, of course, that a site might copy it without acknowledging it (thus breaking the law), but normally it will be acknowledged, so look for that acknowledgement; that's how you can tell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::I get it. I will certainly check for the GNU license information at the bottom next time I choose a reference. Thank you. But while we're on the subject of accusations, how do you explain RobS's constant accusations of subterfuge and "trying to hide a wikimirror." And accusations of being anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit? Accusations that I am a troll and engaged in vandalism? I apologize for my ignorance regarding wikimirrors. The accusations against me go a good deal farther than that, and I believe they are way out of line. NitramNos 21:59, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::The clock is running on NitramNos. The lesson to be taken from all this is, the bigotry that Wikipedia is known for ''will not'' be imposed on us here. We shall determine our own content, from constuctive and cooperative editors, not trolls attempting to spoon feed us wiki-pap during the incessant vandalism intended to distract us. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

If this page is designed solely for the abuse of complainants by those about whom they are registering a complaint, it is not performing a very useful function. RobS would seem to be the troll in this instance. NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:You have not answered the question. The material came from Wikipedia. Why did you hide the wikimirror? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

::On the contrary, you have not answered my question. What do you mean that I "tried to hide the wikimirror?" I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and suspect that you are letting your paranoid imagination run away with you. How does one "hide a wikimirrror?" How does one "try to hide a wikimirror" and fail? What does that have to do with "inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation?" What are you talking about? Could someone enlighten me as to what RobS is getting at, as he seems unable or unwilling to clue me in? NitramNos 17:37, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I have just finished comparing the page from which I drew my material on Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page on the same topic. They are organized differently, worded differently, and have a dfferent focus. Obviously, as they are both about the same historical individual, they contain some of the same information. Equally obviously they were written by different individuals. My conclusion, and that of any reasonable person, is that it is definitely NOT a wikimirrror, and RobS's charges are entirely unfounded. I would suggest that Conservapedia has a loose cannon on its hands in the person of RobS and that his arbitrary and rather wild accusations will prove to be an embarrassment. NitramNos 18:21, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You need to be a lot more cautious in accusing people. Ask questions to find out if perhaps ''you'' are wrong before throwing around accusations. You might think that you have a watertight argument here regarding Wikipedia, but you do not. As Fox has (and now I have) explained above, it ''says'' that it has copied the material from Wikipedia, so that in itself makes it very hard for you to argue otherwise. But the real point is that you have not ruled out (and this is almost certainly the case) that it was copied from ''an earlier version'' of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't read the same ''now'', but Wikipedia articles keep changing of course.
::::By the same token, many others tend to throw around accusations too freely too, often assuming that the person that they are criticising understands more than they actually do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Right here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=193249] bottom of the page,

*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

Last chance to explain yourslef. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT

==Crippes==
Crippes was a positive user with some good edits, but was still blocked. [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 16:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Crippes was blocked for creating a sock which caused some vandalism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::How would Duddgydids know--Duddgydids been here awhole two minutes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Quite possibly because he's a sock from the same source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the same as "Carlowcrab", [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 17:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Then what is your purpose here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-10T01:59:22Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives''' [[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1|Archive 1]]

|}

== RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations ==

I wish to file a complaint about the deletion of an edit I wrote for the [[Censorship]] topic. RobS falsely accuses me of subterfuge and an anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit agenda when I described one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, and one of the first instances (if not the first) of censorship entering the law. I neither mentioned Catholics nor Jesuits, and pointed out that the Pope had actually defended Michelangelo and prevented defacement of his work of art. The reference I cited is not a wiki mirror site, but an educational web site with many sources for its articles. One has only to look at the page I referenced to see that it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. In spite of this, RobS has issued a warning on what I believe to be entirely unfounded complaints. Read the reference I sited, check its background, read my edit and let me know if RobS is justified in censoring my edit and issuing a warning. NitramNos 14:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Why did you try to hide the wikimirror cite [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Censorship&diff=193099&oldid=193061] after inserting a red link to [[Counter-Reformation]]? --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:55, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have no idea what you are talking about. How would I hide a wikimirror cite? What does that have to do with inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation? You sound paranoid to me. NitramNos 15:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:::So you wish to make charges, yet not respond to (a) my specific Warning in the edit summary; (b) my recitation of it here. This comes dangerously close to trolling. Again, why did you hide the wikimirror, and why do you deny it that it is not when anyone can see that it is?

:::And if you can't answer those questions, you have indeed trolled me by wasting my time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:49, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I don't wish to get involved in this, but I think I see your confusion - Just to clarify, NitramNos, the wikimirror RobS refers to is the link to http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm which, like eg Answers.com, is simply a mirror of the wikipedia article of the same name. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Finally, a voice of reason! Thank you Fox. Can you tell me how to tell if a site is a wikimirror site? I am tired of being falsely accused and threatened by RobS. I am tired of the vandalism RobS perpetrates on perfectly valid additions to articles that follow all Conservapedia guidelines (although I admit I am in the dark about what sites and what sites are not the dreaded wikimirrorr sites). NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:NitramNos, you should be able to tell if a site has copied articles from Wikipedia by looking for somewhere on the page where they say so. Wikipedia material is copyrighted under the GNU licence, which means (among other things) that other sites can copy it, but ''must acknowledge'' that it came from Wikipedia. It's always possible, of course, that a site might copy it without acknowledging it (thus breaking the law), but normally it will be acknowledged, so look for that acknowledgement; that's how you can tell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::I get it. I will certainlyy check for the GNU license infformation next time I choose a reference. Thank you. Bu while we're on the subject of accusations, how do you explain RobS's constant accusations of subterfuge and "trying to hide a wikimirror." And accusations of being anti-Catholic and anti-Jesuit? Acusations that I am a troll and engaged in vandalism? I apologize for my ignorance regarding wikimirrors. The accusations against me go a good deal farther than that, and I believe they are way out of line. NitramNos 21:59, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::The clock is running on NitramNos. The lesson to be taken from all this is, the bigotry that Wikipedia is known for ''will not'' be imposed on us here. We shall determine our own content, from constuctive and cooperative editors, not trolls attempting to spoon feed us wiki-pap during the incessant vandalism intended to distract us. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

If this page is designed solely for the abuse of complainants by those about whom they are registering a complaint, it is not performing a very useful function. RobS would seem to be the troll in this instance. NitramNos 16:00, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:You have not answered the question. The material came from Wikipedia. Why did you hide the wikimirror? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

::On the contrary, you have not answered my question. What do you mean that I "tried to hide the wikimirror?" I have not the faintest idea what you are talking about and suspect that you are letting your paranoid imagination run away with you. How does one "hide a wikimirrror?" How does one "try to hide a wikimirror" and fail? What does that have to do with "inserting a red link to Counter-Reformation?" What are you talking about? Could someone enlighten me as to what RobS is getting at, as he seems unable or unwilling to clue me in? NitramNos 17:37, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
:::I have just finished comparing the page from which I drew my material on Michelangelo and the Wikipedia page on the same topic. They are organized differently, worded differently, and have a dfferent focus. Obviously, as they are both about the same historical individual, they contain some of the same information. Equally obviously they were written by different individuals. My conclusion, and that of any reasonable person, is that it is definitely NOT a wikimirrror, and RobS's charges are entirely unfounded. I would suggest that Conservapedia has a loose cannon on its hands in the person of RobS and that his arbitrary and rather wild accusations will prove to be an embarrassment. NitramNos 18:21, 9 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You need to be a lot more cautious in accusing people. Ask questions to find out if perhaps ''you'' are wrong before throwing around accusations. You might think that you have a watertight argument here regarding Wikipedia, but you do not. As Fox has (and now I have) explained above, it ''says'' that it has copied the material from Wikipedia, so that in itself makes it very hard for you to argue otherwise. But the real point is that you have not ruled out (and this is almost certainly the case) that it was copied from ''an earlier version'' of the Wikipedia article. It doesn't read the same ''now'', but Wikipedia articles keep changing of course.
::::By the same token, many others tend to throw around accusations too freely too, often assuming that the person that they are criticising understands more than they actually do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:51, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

Right here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Censorship&diff=prev&oldid=193249] bottom of the page,

*''All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details). Disclaimers. Wikipedia is powered by MediaWiki, an open source wiki engine.''

Last chance to explain yourslef. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:23, 9 June 2007 (EDT

==Crippes==
Crippes was a positive user with some good edits, but was still blocked. [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 16:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Crippes was blocked for creating a sock which caused some vandalism. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:58, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::How would Duddgydids know--Duddgydids been here awhole two minutes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:00, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Quite possibly because he's a sock from the same source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:01, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm not the same as "Carlowcrab", [[User:Duddgydids|Duddgydids]] 17:05, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:Then what is your purpose here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-09T22:21:22Z

NItramNos: the article cited quite obviouusly has no connection to Wikipedia

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-09T22:04:27Z

NItramNos: typos

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-09T21:37:04Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-09T20:00:47Z

NItramNos:

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-06-09T19:52:29Z

NItramNos: /* Evolutionists */

Talk:Scientific theory

2007-06-08T20:18:55Z

NItramNos: Evolutionists

"Why are scientists pushy about their theories (opinions)."
So hilariously bad, that it must be vandalism. Oh, and you forgot a question mark.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 03:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Yes, vandalism, or some sort of joke. "Everyone had a thermometer that measured differently, which is why we have two temperature scales; fahrenheit and celcius." Ha ha. Please revert. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Theory v hunch ==
This article is still in bad shape. It is not true that there is any big difference between scientific and non-scientific usage of the word "theory". Scientists use the word to describe a hunch as much as non-scientists do. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:47, 10 March 2007 (EST)

That's not necessarily true. Scientific "hunches" are known as hypotheses, and most hypotheses are disproved. Theories have corroborating evidence to suggest that they are accurate. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 13:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: No, you are not correct. If you were, then give me some citation backing you up. Show me some scientific paper that says, "That hypothesis might be good enough to be called a theory according to the layman's use of the word, it has not been proved accurate enough to be called a scientific theory." It doesn't happen. There are theories like String Theory that have not been confirmed at all. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:02, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Actually [[RSchlafly]] the statement preceding yours is correct. Your demand regarding a scientific paper makes no sense; why would a scientist writing for an audience of other scientists ever make the statement you require? Next, the National Academy of Sciences, which has reasonable jurisdiction over basic scientific terminology, defines a theory as, "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." In other words, not a "hunch." String Theory moreover doesn't really apply, since many physicists such as Carlo Rovelli and Philip Anderson contest the validity of calling String Theory a theory at all. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I accept the NAS definition, but where is the proof that scientists use the term "theory" differently from others? They don't. A lot of physicists use the term "String Theory", if not all. Are you saying that they are wrong? Does the NAS say that they are wrong? The article promotes a phony distinction that is not recognized by the vast majority of scientists. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory v Scientific Theory==

The [[Theory]] page seems to overlap with [[Scientific theory]] at least in intent, but the former takes a very different position on what the word "theory" means. In fact, it takes a position that makes other uses of the word here problematic. I made a note about that on [[Talk:Theory]]. Perhaps Theory could just redirect to this one? And it would be nice to see something here about how personal bias can lead to the word "theory" being attached to something that isn't really a theory at all (not falsifiable, for example, or having many inconsistencies that are overlooked because they contradict personal bias). Just because the word "theory" gets attached to something in common usage doesn't make it a theory. [[User:Bwilliston|Bwilliston]] 14:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Scrap the other page. It just adds to the confusion. Make it redirect here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:05, 10 March 2007 (EST)

The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I propose replacing the definition in this article with one that conforms more closely to dictionaries and common usage. I suggest:
: A Scientific Theory is a model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. A theory is a plausible or consistent explanation; it becomes scientific when it is subjected to empirical scrutiny. A Scientific Theory must be falsifiable, meaning that there must be some way to do observations that might disprove the theory.
: A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or wildly speculative, such as String Theory. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds pretty good, I'm all for it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking and reverting ==

Why is my version of the article being reverted? I see no fault in it. If you wish to block it, I request that you please give reason.

'''Reason''': Because you are a mindless liberal vandal. Oooooooo. Anything else? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

My version got reverted too! The true reason is that the crazy fundamentalists behind this website can't handle the truth. They have to twist it a little bit so that it doesn't contradict the infallible (yeah right) bible. Sorry guys but evolution is real and there's nothing you can do about it! {{unsigned|Thoth}}

== Reorganization ==

I broke the existing entry into two paragraphs, and added mention of Scientific Laws. Sources still need to be cited (specifically for the first statement. Would the person who wrote the original article cite that?). [[User:Charliemc86|Charliemc86]] 16:46, 21 March 2007 (CST)

==Advocacy==

Cut:

:The concept of scientific theory has come under fire from fundamentalist Christians who don't accept the theory of evolution. The recurring argument is that "it's not fact. It's only a theory" but as shown here in a scientific theory is something that is supported by fact. It's a verified hypothesis and thus in science theory and fact don't stand in opposition.

This is not encyclopedic<s>, it's not even spelled right</s>. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:This could be expanded on at [[Theory and fact]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolutionists ==

Palpable pap! Among scientists there are no "evolutionists", which is a term made up by the pseudoscientists of Creationism. Read the quotes in the article. It refers to scientists, not evolutionists, and those scientists include geologists, astronomers, physicists and chemists. NitramNos 16:18, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Charles Lyell

2007-06-08T19:53:24Z

NItramNos:

Sir Charles Lyell (1797–1875) was a Scottish lawyer and geologist. As a close friend of [[Charles Darwin]], Lyell became one of the early promoters of [[The Theory of Evolution]]. Lyell is also known for his theory of [[uniformitarianism]].

Lyell wrote the "Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man" to present his theories and evidence for evolution and an old earth. He supported an [[ice age]] as part of his theory of an old earth.

[[Category:Scientists]]
[[Category:Geologists]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lyell, Charles}}

Scientific theory

2007-06-08T19:43:55Z

NItramNos: /* Common usage */

A '''scientific theory''' is more substantial than a conjecture or [[hypothesis]], but may not be verified as consistent with empirical data. <ref>For example, scientists may refer to phlogiston theory or ether theory, even though empirical verification was lacking.</ref>

It is a plausible and consistent explanation for observable phenomena.

To be considered [[science|scientific]], a theory must be [[falsifiable]].
This means that there must be some way to do experiments that could counter the theory's predictions, thus disproving the current theory.
<ref>"A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected." [http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php] </ref>

Generally accepted scientific theories have been tested and survived over time, have evolved when appropriate, and modified toward consistency with newly discovered data, have not been shown to be false and can make predictions about natural phenomena. <ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory </ref> Scientific theories can sometimes be used as the basis for industrial and technical developments.

A scientific theory does not necessarily have to have strong experimental support or accepted by the scientific community. Scientists often refer to untested theories and competing theories. Theories can be extremely well-confirmed, such as conservation of energy, or speculative, such as [[String Theory]].

Although Science can not in actuality prove anything to be true for ''sure'' all it can say is the the preponderance of evidence shows that to be the most likely answer.

== Common usage ==
Scientists frequently argue that the word "theory" means very different things to scientists and non-scientists. For example, a PBS TV show says: <ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_1.html</ref>
:''When we use the word "theory" in everyday life, we usually mean an idea or a guess, but the word has a much different meaning in science. This video examines the vocabulary essential for understanding the nature of science and evolution and illustrates how evolution is a powerful, well-supported scientific explanation for the relatedness of all life.''

The American Museum of Natural History exhibit on Darwin says: <ref>http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution/theory.php</ref>
:''In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.''

In science a theory is something that ties together facts. For example, an apple falling to the ground when you let go of it is a fact. From this we can draw the conclusion that there is some force pulling it down. This theory is called the theory of gravity.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-06-08T19:20:32Z

NItramNos:

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It says in Gensis that god created the earth, the light and the plants before he created the sun. The plants therefor had all the light they needed, despite the fact that there was no sun at that point, and the earht cannot have been moving / orbiting. The sun was created in day four.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: You say "There is no direct way to test whether or not the earth is moving", and the article says something similar. You cite the Bible, and the article has Bible quotes. What's the problem? The problem with your links is that they have too much crackpot stuff in them, and are not good sources on the subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

: Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.
: Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.
: As for Point 5, there is another article on [[Galileo]] addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:: There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Robert, so there is a double standard? TOE article for example is full of opposing views, most are creationist views. So why allow that on the TOE page and not on this page?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::By the way, I do not think you (Robert) are wrong in this view, personaly I believe that the POVs should not be in the articles, when the articles are discriptions of ideas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't think that there is any significant dispute about what the Geocentric theory is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I would agree as there is little dispute of what TOE is either. The dispute is not the point, the injecting the views are.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If I were editing [[Theory of evolution]], it would be a lot different. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:39, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Lol, perhaps you should... The consistancy of a lot of the articles seem to be in question when you look at the TOE article and compare it to others on the site. Perhaps some form or standard should be provided. I mentioned to Andy about the Astronomy article containing 22% information on Astronomy, 64% YEC views and 14% counters to YEC views. Seems to not provide a clear definition of what the topic is.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::: You are right, the [[Astronomy]] article is garbage. It doesn't even describe the views of the YEC folks very well, and instead has silly cheap shots. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Do you have any comments on the direction the articles are headed along with suggestions on how to get them on the 'right track'? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rubbish. Abject rubbish. The real issue in *centrism is the overall geometrical form of the solar system, not this trash about "reference points". The overall form of the solar system, regardless of your reference point, is that of a series of quasi-concentric ellipsoids, with the sun occupying one of the foci. This entirely dispels any validity to geocentric pseudoscientific theory, under which Earth would occupy one of the foci. --[[User:ExecutableMandlebrot|ExecutableMandlebrot]] 22:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Another attempt ==
I have put a copy of the first paragraph [[Geocentric Theory/Revision|here]], with some comments, problems and some additions. I would like to collaborate with anyone who can work towards an improved version, which addresses the concerns I have raised about this article previously.--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 10:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Why don't you discuss your concerns here. Your proposal says that it is not true that heliocentrism was preferred in the 1800s. Why do you say that? Who in the 1800s did prefer heliocentrism? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==What happend to Copernicus and Keppler?==
Article jumps from Ptolemy to Maxwell. Huh? The heliocentric model was established in the 1500s and 1600s, not the 1800s. Relativity, etc. do not shed much light on the geocentric/heliocentric debate. (unsigned)

: The article is on geocentrism, not heliocentrism. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Obviously, but the article's second paragaph is still pretty bizarre from a history-of-science perspective. At least in Protestant countries, the geocentic view was replaced long before the 1800s. Maxwell may have convinced a few stragglers, but I never heard that. I would love to see a reference if it's true. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 21:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, the geocentric view replaced the heliocentric before the 1800s. But the 1800s brought the most compelling arguments that geocentrism was scientifically wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Both Theories Correct? ==

There is a major error in this article in the third paragraph. The fact that calculations are done from the perspective that the Earth is not moving around the Sun does not mean that physicists are applying a geocentric theory. It merely means that, when convenient, they can perform calculations from the point of view of a static Earth. By the same token, you can perform calculations based on the world as seen from a moving train, and assume that the train is not moving. That does not mean you have a theory that the train is not moving (a train-centric theory?). NitramNos 12:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Maybe the proper thing to say is that modern theories suggest that there is no "center" to the universe per se. At the same time, modern physical models and mathematical tools allow us to call any point the center for purposes of convenience. That was the real problem with geocentrism: It took the observed motions of the planets and forced them into a messy spheres-within-spheres model which not only was complicated but also shed no light on the real (Kepplerian) physical principles involved. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 12:39, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

: No, that is not error. If you do calculations in Earth-centered coordinates then you are using geocentric theory, whether you think of the Earth as static or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

: That is patently false. You are dishonestly conflating the term Geocentric Theory, which historically refers to the theory stating that the Earth is the center of the universe, with a mathematical convenience. Performing calculations based on a geocentric coordinate system does not equal belief in the geocentric theory. It is just a convenient use of a reference frame as was already pointed out. I can perform calculations using a reference frame centered on myself, but it does not mean I think I am the center of the universe. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:56, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:: If you are so sure of yourself, can you provide a reference to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have to agree with QNA. You are pulling the same trick that the evolutionists pull when they capitalize "Theory and Evolution" and then claim that the word ''theory'' has been promoted from a ''hypotesis'' to a ''field of study'', like Number Theory. But geocentrism was never such a field. It was a viewpoint that fell to a superior (for most purposes) viewpoint. Happens all the time in science. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:37, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, it happens all the time that some viewpoints are superior over others for some purposes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid RShafly's opinion above is based on a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the term 'scientific theory.' As QNA points out above, performing a calculation based on an assumption that the Earth is not revolving because it is convenient when calculating a rocket's trajectory, is not based on a theory that the Earth is not revolving. By the same token, if I perform a calculation involving the movements of objects outside a moving train from the point of view that the train is not moving, it does not imply that I have a theory that the train is not actually moving. You will find a good definition of 'scientific theory' here [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:scientific+theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title]. NitramNos 09:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Strictly speaking, Ga ohoyt is correct. The Sun is certainly not the center of the universe. Current scientific theory, however, does assume that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the reverse. NitramNos 09:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: So what are you saying, that geocentric theory does not qualify as a scientific theory under someone's definition of scientific theory? That calculations of a rocket trajectory are not based on theory? If there is some misunderstanding, then please explain it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong. Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory. It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory. It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else. The theory is not used for anything. Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory. Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling. I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia? And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself. One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::RSchafly, you asked for a citation and I gave you a citation. I would suggest that the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that your idiosyncratic definition of 'scientific theory' is accepted by the scientific community. NitramNos

:: The only citation is for some definitions of "scientific theory". They do not contradict the article. There is already a CP entry on [[Scientific theory]], and you might want to read that for comparison.
:: QNA, I guess that you are arguing that there is a difference between Geocentric and geocentric. Can you supply a reference that draws the distinction? I say that it does not exit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:48, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, why is the article locked, anyway? Afraid someone might fix it? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: People kept putting kooky stuff in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:08, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
::Can't take the truth, can you? I suggested you remove an erroneous assumption that two opposing scientific theories can be held to be true by the same scientific community at the same time. You asked for a citation proving that this is fundamental to the meaning of 'scientific theory'. I gave you several. You locked the article just in case the truth crept in, even though this discussion had been confined to the talk page. Don't you feel kind of "kooky" yourself right about now? NitramNos 15:20, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-08T19:01:15Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-08T18:53:49Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-08T18:53:29Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-08T18:53:06Z

NItramNos: /* RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations */

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:52:31Z

NItramNos: /* Bunker Mentality */

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorship? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:52:13Z

NItramNos: Bunker Mentality

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I cited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

== Bunker Mentality ==

You people are a work of art! You do not consider the alteration of a work of art to be censorhip? What planet do you live on? NitramNos 14:52, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-06-08T18:50:24Z

NItramNos: RobS deleting factual edits with valid citations

Censorship

2007-06-08T18:41:57Z

NItramNos:

'''Censorship''' is the act of withholding information from a larger audience by a group of people or a single person who has the power to do so, or the alteration of a work of art. Oftentimes it is done for the supposed protection of the ''people'', or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people.

{{stub2}}

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:39:54Z

NItramNos: /* Censorship of Michelangelo */

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:39:21Z

NItramNos:

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I sited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip! NitramNos 14:39, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:39:06Z

NItramNos:

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::What a perfect description of what conservapedia does.

== Censorship of Michelangelo ==

I can only marvel at the irony. You don't dispute the facts, you only characterize them as anti-Catholic. Which is absurd. The Pope himself defended Michelagelo, and I stated that fact. The site cited is not a Wikipedia mirror site, but if you need a different citation, I can certainly find one. But, again, it is not the facts you dispute. The facts are inconvenient (for you., personally, for some reason), and so you censor them. How appropriate. You remind me of nothing so much as the Soviet revisionists of history. NitramNos 14:25, 8 June 2007 (EDT)
:The subterfuge you employed to place this WP content gave it away. And of course the [[Counter-Reformation]] stab. If you wish to contribute constructively, please do so. However CP's content will not controlled and regulated by outside influences. [[User:RobS|RobS]]
::I have not the slightest idea what you mean when you refer to subterfuge. Please be more specific, unless this is just an example of your paranoia affecting your better judgement. Your accusations are a rather wild. Have you actually looked at the reference I sited? It is not a WP mirror site. I added the Counter-Reformation fact (which you characterize so typically in your paranoid fashion as a "stab") after checking my notes and seeing I had left that out (as you would see if you did your homework and checked the reference in the first place). I summarized and cited one of the best-known instances of censorship in history, but you do not deem it worthy of the Censorship article. Controlled and regulated by outside "influences." Get a grip!

Talk:Censorship

2007-06-08T18:25:44Z

NItramNos: Censorship of Michelangelo

X-ray

2007-06-08T17:43:42Z

NItramNos: dental clinics/teeth added

X-ray is an [[electromagnetic wave]] with a wavelength of about 10-10 meters, which is beyond the range of wavelength visible to the human eye. It is often used in hospitals and dental clinics to produce images of patient's internal organs, bones or teeth on a photographic plate.
*X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who received the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. [http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/]
Ron Curtis wrote:
:X-rays are part of the [[electromagnetic]] spectrum, which includes [[radio]] waves, [[microwave]]s, and visible [[light]]. They have an extremely short wavelength or high frequency, thus giving them high energy. X-rays can penetrate most materials except [[lead]] shielding. They are used in medicine and industry to examine structural problems. When they were discovered, the "X" stood for "unknown," because they were so mysterious. The name has been used ever since. [http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm]

The very first Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Röntgen for the discovery of X-rays. A year later his parents died and Röntgen inherited two million marks. He and his wife were now both rich and famous. He spent much time traveling, with little devotion to further scientific research. [http://ctct.essortment.com/wilhelmroentgen_rght.htm]

During the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, many shoe stores used an X-ray machine to demonstrate how well a shoe fit the feet of the customer. By 1960 the practice had been discontinued in the United States because of safety concerns. The machines were still in use in Canada and Great Britain in the 1970s. <ref>http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm</ref>

[[category: physics]]

==External links==
*[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/ Nobel Prize in Physics]
*[http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm X-rays - School for Champions: Succeed in Physical Science]
*[http://www.rhhct.org.uk/history.html Medical diagnostics using X-rays] - long, technical article written on high-school or college level

X-ray

2007-06-08T17:42:41Z

NItramNos: X-ray machines at shoe stores

X-ray is an [[electromagnetic wave]] with a wavelength of about 10-10 meters, which is beyond the range of wavelength visible to the human eye. It is often used in hospitals to produce images of patient's internal organs and bones on a photographic plate.
*X-rays were discovered in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen, who received the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. [http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/]
Ron Curtis wrote:
:X-rays are part of the [[electromagnetic]] spectrum, which includes [[radio]] waves, [[microwave]]s, and visible [[light]]. They have an extremely short wavelength or high frequency, thus giving them high energy. X-rays can penetrate most materials except [[lead]] shielding. They are used in medicine and industry to examine structural problems. When they were discovered, the "X" stood for "unknown," because they were so mysterious. The name has been used ever since. [http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm]

The very first Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Röntgen for the discovery of X-rays. A year later his parents died and Röntgen inherited two million marks. He and his wife were now both rich and famous. He spent much time traveling, with little devotion to further scientific research. [http://ctct.essortment.com/wilhelmroentgen_rght.htm]

During the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, many shoe stores used an X-ray machine to demonstrate how well a shoe fit the feet of the customer. By 1960 the practice had been discontinued in the United States because of safety concerns. The machines were still in use in Canada and Great Britain in the 1970s. <ref>http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm</ref>

[[category: physics]]

==External links==
*[http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/physics/x-rays/ Nobel Prize in Physics]
*[http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/xrays.htm X-rays - School for Champions: Succeed in Physical Science]
*[http://www.rhhct.org.uk/history.html Medical diagnostics using X-rays] - long, technical article written on high-school or college level

Censorship

2007-06-08T17:13:56Z

NItramNos: removed possibly mythical allegation

'''Censorship''' is the act of withholding information from a larger audience by a group of people or a single person who has the power to do so. Oftentimes it is done for the protection of the ''people'', or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people.

Michelangelo was accused of obscenity when he finished ''The Last Judgment'' in 1541 because of his depictions of naked figures showing genitals. A censorhip campaign was mounted to remove the frescos, but the Pope resisted. When Michelangelo died a law was issued that genitals in works of art should be covered, and one of his apprentices painted over the parts in question. In 1993 the work was restored, but the work was left in its censored state. The "fig-leaf campaign" of the [[Counter-Reformation]] to cover all representations of human genitals in paintings and sculptures started with Michelangelo's works. One example is that the child Jesus in "Madonna of Bruges" remained covered for several decades. <ref>http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm</ref>

A similar campaign occurred in Victorian Britain.

{{stub2}}

Censorship

2007-06-08T17:09:39Z

NItramNos: omission corrected

Censorship

2007-06-08T17:07:49Z

NItramNos: Michelangelo and censorship

'''Censorship''' is the act of withholding information from a larger audience by a group of people or a single person who has the power to do so. Oftentimes it is done for the protection of the ''people'', or to keep the group of people from knowing something bad about the empowered people.

Michelangelo was accused of obscenity when he finished ''The Last Judgment'' in 1541 because of his depictions of naked figures showing genitals. A censorhip campaign was mounted to remove the frescos, but the Pope resisted. When Michelangelo died a law was issued that genitals in works of art should be covered, and one of his apprentices painted over the parts in question. In 1993 the work was restored, but the work was left in its censored state. The "fig-leaf campaign" to cover all representations of human genitals in paintings and sculptures started with Michelangelo's works. One example is that the child Jesus in "Madonna of Bruges" remained covered for several decades. <ref>http://www.edinformatics.com/great_thinkers/michelangelo.htm</ref>

A similar campaign occurred in Victorian Britain, where even the legs of pianos were covered in more fastidious households.

{{stub2}}

Core nations

2007-06-08T16:47:32Z

NItramNos: grammar

'''Core nations''' are the most dominant countries in the world economic system. The core produces capital-intensive high-technology goods from their sophisticated technologies and mechanized means of production. The [[United States]] is considered to be one of the core nations.

Talk:Science fiction

2007-06-08T16:29:05Z

NItramNos: /* Hope you don't mind */

== Dual-user Provenance ==
My edits to this article as of April 22, 2007, represent a dual submission of content of sole authorship. I am the same person as User:Temlakos on [[CreationWiki]]. My contributions to this article are based in part on [http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Science_fiction&oldid=70097 this version] of the CreationWiki article, which is entirely my work. I have, however, expanded on certain concepts that are more appropriate to a general encyclopedia than to one specializing in creation science and creation-informed history.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:58, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Hope you don't mind ==

I hope you don't mind that I made some edits to your article without first discussing them with you. The article is a excellent one, but I thought there should perhaps be a bit more emphasis on the exploration of philosophical and psychological questions as opposed to scientific theories, discoveries and inventions. I've been reading science fiction for more than 40 years, and have long been interested in both the entertaining and the serious sides of the genre. NitramNos 10:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:Those edits are friendly.

:My understanding of science fiction has grown a little dim; that article reflects all that I remember from the genre before I quit reading it.

:One thing puzzles me: from a literary agent who tried to place a manuscript of mine, I now learn that "science fiction" includes even a story that uses an out-of-the-ordinary machine as a plot device. Even a drama involving a spacecraft that [[NASA]] could build today now somehow qualifies as "science fiction." Do you agree? Before you answer, let me give you two titles that some might put in this category: ''Oxygen'' and ''The Fifth Man'' by John Olson and Randall S. Ingermanson. The first title even won the Christy Award for the best futuristic faith-based novel in its year.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 10:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::I haven't read the stories you mention. I guess, strictly speaking, science fiction could encompass any story that involves a machine, invention etc. that has not yet been built, even if it is possible with current technology, particularly if the machine is crucial to the plot. I must confess, much of my favorite science fiction when I was in school consisted of collections from the science fiction pulp magazines of the 40s and 50s, though I equally enjoyed more serious works. NitramNos 11:32, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, obviously you know more about that genre than I do. Of course, we mustn't feature any content that would have violated the [[Motion Picture Production Code]]. That means, of course, that some science-fiction authors would be better not to mention.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:51, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Don't worry, I'm not talking about scantily clad females. I'm talking about space ships jetting about the galaxy with ray-gun wielding heroes. NitramNos 12:29, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Geocentric theory

2007-06-08T16:23:24Z

NItramNos: /* Both Theories Correct? */

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

: Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

[http://www.answers.com/topic/hafele-keating-experiment| Hafele-Keating experiment]

[http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html| GPS and relativity]

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about:
[http://www.thefinaltheory.com thefinaltheory.com]
I'll post a load more links when I have more time.
I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/viewchapter.html here]. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity.
The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html here] and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works [http://www.thefinaltheory.com/sciencearticles.html here]. Expalin that if you can [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four]
[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it.
I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

: No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Many people have tried to create a [[Theory of everything]]. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. [[Paradigm shift]]s in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. [[String theory]] has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the [[Bible]] says. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Vandalism==
I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.
* (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. '''OfficerDibble'''.

:: I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

: Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.
: Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.[[OfficerDibble]]

:: In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

: You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.
: To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.
: If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::: I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.[[OfficerDibble]]

: Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservapedia Protocol==

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Floccinaucinihilipilification should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. [[OfficerDibble]]

: So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggested Changes ==

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) [http://www.geocentricity.com/ geocentricity.com] 2) [http://www.fixedearth.com/ fixedearth.com] 3) [http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/scicreed.htm Three] 4) [http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html Four] 5)[http://www.galileowaswrong.com/ galileowaswrong.com]. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

: So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.
: Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It says in Gensis that god created the earth, the light and the plants before he created the sun. The plants therefor had all the light they needed, despite the fact that there was no sun at that point, and the earht cannot have been moving / orbiting. The sun was created in day four.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 08:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

: You say "There is no direct way to test whether or not the earth is moving", and the article says something similar. You cite the Bible, and the article has Bible quotes. What's the problem? The problem with your links is that they have too much crackpot stuff in them, and are not good sources on the subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Important elements to include in the Article ==

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref> This is not a unique view: "If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.
# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical, rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality', by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasoning. All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical'' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.
# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.
# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
# Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding why Geocentricsm was subsequently sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.

What [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

: Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.
: Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.
: As for Point 5, there is another article on [[Galileo]] addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]]
:: There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "[[Copernicus]] and [[Galileo]] were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::: No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::::Robert, so there is a double standard? TOE article for example is full of opposing views, most are creationist views. So why allow that on the TOE page and not on this page?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::By the way, I do not think you (Robert) are wrong in this view, personaly I believe that the POVs should not be in the articles, when the articles are discriptions of ideas.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I don't think that there is any significant dispute about what the Geocentric theory is. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: I would agree as there is little dispute of what TOE is either. The dispute is not the point, the injecting the views are.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: If I were editing [[Theory of evolution]], it would be a lot different. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:39, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Lol, perhaps you should... The consistancy of a lot of the articles seem to be in question when you look at the TOE article and compare it to others on the site. Perhaps some form or standard should be provided. I mentioned to Andy about the Astronomy article containing 22% information on Astronomy, 64% YEC views and 14% counters to YEC views. Seems to not provide a clear definition of what the topic is.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 14:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::::::: You are right, the [[Astronomy]] article is garbage. It doesn't even describe the views of the YEC folks very well, and instead has silly cheap shots. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::::: Do you have any comments on the direction the articles are headed along with suggestions on how to get them on the 'right track'? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rubbish. Abject rubbish. The real issue in *centrism is the overall geometrical form of the solar system, not this trash about "reference points". The overall form of the solar system, regardless of your reference point, is that of a series of quasi-concentric ellipsoids, with the sun occupying one of the foci. This entirely dispels any validity to geocentric pseudoscientific theory, under which Earth would occupy one of the foci. --[[User:ExecutableMandlebrot|ExecutableMandlebrot]] 22:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Another attempt ==
I have put a copy of the first paragraph [[Geocentric Theory/Revision|here]], with some comments, problems and some additions. I would like to collaborate with anyone who can work towards an improved version, which addresses the concerns I have raised about this article previously.--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 10:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

: Why don't you discuss your concerns here. Your proposal says that it is not true that heliocentrism was preferred in the 1800s. Why do you say that? Who in the 1800s did prefer heliocentrism? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==What happend to Copernicus and Keppler?==
Article jumps from Ptolemy to Maxwell. Huh? The heliocentric model was established in the 1500s and 1600s, not the 1800s. Relativity, etc. do not shed much light on the geocentric/heliocentric debate. (unsigned)

: The article is on geocentrism, not heliocentrism. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::Obviously, but the article's second paragaph is still pretty bizarre from a history-of-science perspective. At least in Protestant countries, the geocentic view was replaced long before the 1800s. Maxwell may have convinced a few stragglers, but I never heard that. I would love to see a reference if it's true. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 21:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, the geocentric view replaced the heliocentric before the 1800s. But the 1800s brought the most compelling arguments that geocentrism was scientifically wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

== Both Theories Correct? ==

There is a major error in this article in the third paragraph. The fact that calculations are done from the perspective that the Earth is not moving around the Sun does not mean that physicists are applying a geocentric theory. It merely means that, when convenient, they can perform calculations from the point of view of a static Earth. By the same token, you can perform calculations based on the world as seen from a moving train, and assume that the train is not moving. That does not mean you have a theory that the train is not moving (a train-centric theory?). NitramNos 12:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:I agree. Maybe the proper thing to say is that modern theories suggest that there is no "center" to the universe per se. At the same time, modern physical models and mathematical tools allow us to call any point the center for purposes of convenience. That was the real problem with geocentrism: It took the observed motions of the planets and forced them into a messy spheres-within-spheres model which not only was complicated but also shed no light on the real (Kepplerian) physical principles involved. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 12:39, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

: No, that is not error. If you do calculations in Earth-centered coordinates then you are using geocentric theory, whether you think of the Earth as static or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

: That is patently false. You are dishonestly conflating the term Geocentric Theory, which historically refers to the theory stating that the Earth is the center of the universe, with a mathematical convenience. Performing calculations based on a geocentric coordinate system does not equal belief in the geocentric theory. It is just a convenient use of a reference frame as was already pointed out. I can perform calculations using a reference frame centered on myself, but it does not mean I think I am the center of the universe. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:56, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

:: If you are so sure of yourself, can you provide a reference to back up what you say? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

::I have to agree with QNA. You are pulling the same trick that the evolutionists pull when they capitalize "Theory and Evolution" and then claim that the word ''theory'' has been promoted from a ''hypotesis'' to a ''field of study'', like Number Theory. But geocentrism was never such a field. It was a viewpoint that fell to a superior (for most purposes) viewpoint. Happens all the time in science. [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 20:37, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, it happens all the time that some viewpoints are superior over others for some purposes. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid RShafly's opinion above is based on a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the term 'scientific theory.' As QNA points out above, performing a calculation based on an assumption that the Earth is not revolving because it is convenient when calculating a rocket's trajectory, is not based on a theory that the Earth is not revolving. By the same token, if I perform a calculation involving the movements of objects outside a moving train from the point of view that the train is not moving, it does not imply that I have a theory that the train is not actually moving. You will find a good definition of 'scientific theory' here [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:scientific+theory&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title]. NitramNos 09:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Strictly speaking, Ga ohoyt is correct. The Sun is certainly not the center of the universe. Current scientific theory, however, does assume that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the reverse. NitramNos 09:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: So what are you saying, that geocentric theory does not qualify as a scientific theory under someone's definition of scientific theory? That calculations of a rocket trajectory are not based on theory? If there is some misunderstanding, then please explain it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong. Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory. It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory. It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else. The theory is not used for anything. Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory. Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling. I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia? And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself. One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::RSchafly, you asked for a citation and I gave you a citation. I would suggest that the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that your ideosycratic definition of 'scientific theory' is accepted by the scientific community. NitramNos

Impressionism

2007-06-08T15:58:12Z

NItramNos: impressionism based on theories of light and color

[[Image:Waterlilies.jpg|thumb|300px|Monet Waterlilies]]

Impressionism was an [[art]] movement of the 19th century that began in [[Paris]]. It is characterized by the use of unmixed primary colors and small strokes to simulate actual reflected light. Impressionist painters attempted to accurately and objectively record visual reality in terms of transient effects of light and color. <ref>http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/glo/impressionism/</ref> If you were to look closely at an impressionistic painting it would look more like thousands of random brush strokes all across the canvas. But once you step back all the strokes come together and make a beautiful piece of art. The most famous impressionist artist was [[Claude Monet]]. Other famous impressionists included: [[Edouard Manet]], [[Pierre-Auguste Renoir]], [[Paul Cezanne]], [[Edgar Degas]], [[Van Gogh]] and [[Mary Cassatt]]. This new style also spread to [[music]] and literature.
[[Image:Monet Impressionsunrise.jpg|right|thumb|Impression Sunrise, Impressionism starting painting.]]

== See also ==

*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Painting Schools]]

[[Category:Artistic movements]]

Talk:Science fiction

2007-06-08T15:32:54Z

NItramNos: /* Hope you don't mind */

Amaterasu

2007-06-08T15:22:07Z

NItramNos: 'pagan' redundant when referring to multiple gods; Amaterasu hides in cave

Amaterasu is a mythical sun goddess in the ancient Japanese religion of [[Shinto|Shintoism]]. The most famous story about Amaterasu tells of her retreat to a cave when her brother the storm god ravaged the earth with storms. Without the sun godess, crops began to die and demons roamed the earth. To lure her out of the cave, another godess performed a lewd dance outside the cave. Hearing the laughter of the gods, Amaterasu peeked out of the cave and saw herself in a mirror hung on a tree. Awed by her own beauty and brightness, she ventured farther out of the cave, where the other gods caught her and pulled her out. <ref>http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/amaterasu.html</ref> The story is reminiscent of the Greek legend of the abduction of Persephone by the god of the underworld, Hades. As her mother Demeter, the godess of the Earth, roamed in search of her daughter, crops withered in the fields and people suffered terribly.

Alcoholic drink

2007-06-08T15:04:06Z

NItramNos: /* Wine */

'''Alcoholic drinks''' are beverages which contain [[ethanol]] (C2H5OH). [[Ethanol]] is an addictive psychoactive depressant, although the initial effects may resemble that of a stimulant. Alcohol consumption tends to lower inhibition, slow reaction time and decrease dexterity. Over-consumption can result in loss of consiousness, coma, or even death. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. Alcoholic drinks come in a multitude of varieties.

== Beer ==

[[Beer]] is a drink produced through the fermentation of malted grains and the addition of hops. Hops give beer its distinctive bitter taste. There are also many types of beers available, each with its own unique brewing method and history. The most popular type of beer in America is the pilsner, noted for its light golden color due to the use of lightly roasted grains. Gaining in popularity are other types of beer such as porters, lagers, wheat-beer, and ales.

Beer was discovered independently by many societies in the past<ref>[http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/history_of_beer.htm History of Beer], ''Fosters Australia''</ref>. In ancient [[Egypt]], to help provide the calories needed and keep the lower classes happy <ref>[http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/egypt_alcohol.html Ancient Egyptian Alcohol], ''thekeep.com''</ref>. Within [[Christianity]], beer was often made by monks who used the heavy ales to ease hunger pains while fasting<ref>[http://www.eat-online.net/english/habits/beer_in_the_middle_ages.htm Beer in the Middle Ages], ''Eat Online''</ref>.

== Wine ==

[[Wine]] is usually made by the fermentation of grapes, but can be made using other fruits, or other parts of plants.
Wines, like beer, come in a variety of types with different bouquets and flavors. In ancient times there were many gods of wine that were worshipped<ref>[http://www.wineintro.com/history/religion/index.html Wine, Religion, and Gods], ''Wineintro.com''</ref> (Bacchus, Dionysus, and Geshtin for example). As wine was part of the holy traditions in both Jewish and Christian customs it was important that this wine was not blessed for other gods (which would make it unclean). Kosher and sacramental wine was watched to be sure that it was properly handled and no idolatry was preformed with it<ref>[http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033155.htm What Makes a Wine Kosher?], ''Gems in Israel''</ref>. Some branches of Christianity believe that wine was transformed (and continues to be transformed) into the [[blood]] of [[Christ]] during communion.

==Liquor==

Liquor is derived from fermented grains or other plants with a high starch content, that are then [[distillation|distilled]] to increase the alcohol content. Liquors such as [[rum]], [[tequila]] and [[vodka]] are derived from molasses, [[agave]] and grain or potatoes respectively. Some liquors are aged for years to improve flavor.

== Biblical References ==

The [[Bible]] speaks of consumption, or over-consumption, multiple times.

:According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

It is written:

:''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"'' <ref>''1 Corinthians 6:9-10''</ref>

And similarly:

:''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' <ref>''Galatians 5:19-21''</ref>

The Bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

:''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' <ref>''Numbers 6:1-4''</ref>

:''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' <ref>''Daniel 1:8''</ref>

:''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" <ref>''Luke 1:13-15''</ref>

Noah, singled out by God as a just man ("But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6: 8-9) still indulged in strong drink.

:''"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." <ref>''Genesis 9:20-21''</ref>

Most biblical scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkenness, and certainly regular drunkenness, constitutes [[sin]]; as it takes you out of your normal state of mind and alters your [[will]] and ability to make good decisions. Not to mention the potentially serious physical ramifications of alcoholism which include liver disease as well as an increased risk of heart disease (but not when consumed in moderation).

Jesus himself was not opposed to the consumption of wine- one of the first miracles recorded in the [[Gospel of John]] has him turn water into wine at a wedding feast (John 2). It can be assumed that the guests had already been drinking immoderately, since they had consumed all the alcohol available to them. Matthew 11:19 also refers to Jesus being called a 'glutton and a drunkard', possibly unfairly. Some biblical scholars argue that the alcohol content of wine in that day was negligible compared to the wine of today{{fact}}.

In 1 Timothy 5:23 Paul counsels:

:''"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[Category:Drugs]]

Alcoholic drink

2007-06-08T15:01:33Z

NItramNos: effects

'''Alcoholic drinks''' are beverages which contain [[ethanol]] (C2H5OH). [[Ethanol]] is an addictive psychoactive depressant, although the initial effects may resemble that of a stimulant. Alcohol consumption tends to lower inhibition, slow reaction time and decrease dexterity. Over-consumption can result in loss of consiousness, coma, or even death. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. Alcoholic drinks come in a multitude of varieties.

== Beer ==

[[Beer]] is a drink produced through the fermentation of malted grains and the addition of hops. Hops give beer its distinctive bitter taste. There are also many types of beers available, each with its own unique brewing method and history. The most popular type of beer in America is the pilsner, noted for its light golden color due to the use of lightly roasted grains. Gaining in popularity are other types of beer such as porters, lagers, wheat-beer, and ales.

Beer was discovered independently by many societies in the past<ref>[http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/history_of_beer.htm History of Beer], ''Fosters Australia''</ref>. In ancient [[Egypt]], to help provide the calories needed and keep the lower classes happy <ref>[http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/egypt_alcohol.html Ancient Egyptian Alcohol], ''thekeep.com''</ref>. Within [[Christianity]], beer was often made by monks who used the heavy ales to ease hunger pains while fasting<ref>[http://www.eat-online.net/english/habits/beer_in_the_middle_ages.htm Beer in the Middle Ages], ''Eat Online''</ref>.

== Wine ==

[[Wine]] is usually made by the fermentation of grapes, but can be made using other fruits, or other parts of plants.
Wines, like beer, come in a variety of types with different bouquets and flavors. In ancient times there were many gods of wine that were worshipped<ref>[http://www.wineintro.com/history/religion/index.html Wine, Religion, and Gods], ''Wineintro.com''</ref> (Bacchus, Dionysus, and Geshtin for example). As wine was part of the holy traditions in both Jewish and Christian customs it was important that this wine was not blessed for other gods (which would make it unclean). Kosher and sacramental wine was watched to be sure that it was properly handled and no idolatry was preformed with it<ref>[http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033155.htm What Makes a Wine Kosher?], ''Gems in Israel''</ref>. Some branches of Christianity believe that wine was transformed (and continues to be transformed) into the [[blood]] of [[Christ]].

==Liquor==

Liquor is derived from fermented grains or other plants with a high starch content, that are then [[distillation|distilled]] to increase the alcohol content. Liquors such as [[rum]], [[tequila]] and [[vodka]] are derived from molasses, [[agave]] and grain or potatoes respectively. Some liquors are aged for years to improve flavor.

== Biblical References ==

The [[Bible]] speaks of consumption, or over-consumption, multiple times.

:According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

It is written:

:''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"'' <ref>''1 Corinthians 6:9-10''</ref>

And similarly:

:''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' <ref>''Galatians 5:19-21''</ref>

The Bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

:''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' <ref>''Numbers 6:1-4''</ref>

:''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' <ref>''Daniel 1:8''</ref>

:''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" <ref>''Luke 1:13-15''</ref>

Noah, singled out by God as a just man ("But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6: 8-9) still indulged in strong drink.

:''"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." <ref>''Genesis 9:20-21''</ref>

Most biblical scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkenness, and certainly regular drunkenness, constitutes [[sin]]; as it takes you out of your normal state of mind and alters your [[will]] and ability to make good decisions. Not to mention the potentially serious physical ramifications of alcoholism which include liver disease as well as an increased risk of heart disease (but not when consumed in moderation).

Jesus himself was not opposed to the consumption of wine- one of the first miracles recorded in the [[Gospel of John]] has him turn water into wine at a wedding feast (John 2). It can be assumed that the guests had already been drinking immoderately, since they had consumed all the alcohol available to them. Matthew 11:19 also refers to Jesus being called a 'glutton and a drunkard', possibly unfairly. Some biblical scholars argue that the alcohol content of wine in that day was negligible compared to the wine of today{{fact}}.

In 1 Timothy 5:23 Paul counsels:

:''"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Alcoholic beverages]]
[[Category:Drugs]]

Georges-Henri Lemaître

2007-06-08T14:55:58Z

NItramNos:

[[Image:Father Lemaitre University.jpg|right|thumb]]
Georges-Henri Lemaître(1894–1966) first proposed (in 1927) the creation of the universe through a "[[Big Bang]]." A Belgian, [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] priest and veteran of [[World War I]], he was an accomplished [[Physics|physicist]] and [[Astronomy|astronomer]]. [[Edwin Hubble]] found evidence to support Lemaître's theory two years later.

Most physicists, including [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]], disagreed with Lemaître at first, as they thought the universe existed forever in a steady state. But they subsequently changed their opinion, agreeing with Lemaître as evidence mounted to support his theory.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lemaître, Georges-Henri}}
[[Category:Physicists]]

Ted Stevens

2007-06-08T14:54:18Z

NItramNos: typo

[[Image:Stevens.jpg|right|thumb|Ted Stevens]]

'''Theodore Fulton "Ted" Stevens''' (born November 18, 1923) is the senior [[United States Senator]] from [[Alaska]]. He noted for being a pro-abortion [[Republican Party|Republican]].

As the longest serving [[Republican]] in the Senate, Stevens served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate from January 3, 2003, to January 3, 2007. Stevens chaired the Senate [[Appropriations Committee]] from 1997 to 2005, except for the 18 months when [[Democrat]]s controlled the chamber. The chairmanship gave Stevens considerable influence among fellow Senators, who relied on him for home-state project funds.

Stevens has had a six-decade career of public service, beginning with his service in [[World War II]]. In the 1950s, he held senior positions in the [[Eisenhower]] Interior and Justice departments. He has served continuously in the Senate since 1968.

==Early years==

Ted Stevens was born in [[Indianapolis]], [[Indiana]], in 1923. During World War II, he was an Army Air Forces C-47 pilot in the China-Burma-India theater with the "Flying Tigers" of the Fourteenth Air Force from 1943 to 1946, holding the rank of First Lieutenant. There he received two Distinguished [[Flying Cross]]es and two [[Air Medal]]s, as well as the [[Yuan Hai]] medal awarded by the Republic of [[China]].

After the war, Stevens attended UCLA, where he was a member of [[Delta Kappa Epsilon]], and [[Harvard Law School]]. In the early 1950s he moved to Alaska, then a territory.

In Fairbanks, Stevens practiced law, and he was appointed U.S. Attorney for Fairbanks in 1953.

In 1956, Stevens was transferred to Washington, D.C., where he worked as legislative counsel and assistant to Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton. He also pushed for the statehood of Alaska and Hawaii, which occurred in 1959. In 1960, then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower promoted Stevens to solicitor of the Department of the Interior.

After returning to Alaska, Stevens practiced law in Anchorage. He was elected to the Alaska House of Representatives in 1964, and became House majority leader in his second term.

==U.S. Senate==

In December 1968, Governor Walter Joseph Hickel appointed Stevens to the U.S. Senate after the death of Democrat Bob Bartlett[1]. In 1970, Stevens was elected to finish the term in a special election, and has been reelected six times since, in 1972, 1978, 1984, 1990, 1996 and 2002. His current term will expire in 2009.

Stevens served as the Assistant Republican Whip from 1977 to 1985. In 1994, Stevens was appointed Chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. Stevens became the Senate's president pro tempore when Republicans regained control of the chamber as a result of the 2002 mid-term elections, during which the previous most senior republican senator and former president pro tempore Strom Thurmond retired. He is a former Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee. In the past, Stevens also has served as Chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, the Arms Control Observer Group, and the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress.

His campaign political action committee is called the "Northern Lights PAC."

Ted Stevens created a national emabarassment when he pushed funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” a bridge in Alaska which would have connected the town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina (population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million, by way of three separate earmarks in a highway bill. A ferry service ran to the island, but some in the town complained about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car). The Heritage Foundation maintained that "the Gravina Island bridge project is an embarrassment to the people of Alaska and the U.S. Congress...fiscally responsible Members of Congress should be eager to zero out its funding."<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm889.cfm</ref>

== External links ==
*[http://stevens.senate.gov/ United States Senator Ted Stevens] '''official Senate site'''
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Ted_Stevens.htm On the Issues - Ted Stevens] issue positions and quotes

[[Category:Republican war heroes|Stevens, Ted]]
[[Category:US Senators]]

Western World

2007-06-08T14:53:15Z

NItramNos: resolved apparent contradiction

The '''Western World''' is a term that has been used to describe the nations culturally tied to [[Greco-Roman]] and [[Judeo-Christian]] cultures. The most famous use of the term "Western world" was during the [[Cold War]], when the "west" referred to the [[Western Bloc]], made up of [[NATO]] and allied nations.

The countries and regions generally included in the description of the "western world" are western [[Europe]], the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], and [[Israel]]. Other nations often included in the political sense of this definition include eastern Europe (since the fall of the [[Iron Curtain]]), [[Japan]], [[South Korea]], [[Taiwan]], and [[Hong Kong]].

== See also ==
*[[Western civilization]]

Eternal life

2007-06-08T14:51:13Z

NItramNos:

Eternal life is the term frequently used by Jesus to describe the endless happiness enjoyed in heaven,<ref>Matthew 25:46; Mark 9:44; Luke 18:30: John 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 12.</ref> and to some extent the fullness of life in this lifetime to those that embraced his lessons on living a good life.

== References ==

<references/>

Orbit

2007-06-08T14:50:13Z

NItramNos: Kepler proposed elliptical planetary orbits

Scientists assumed that the '''orbits''' of [[planet]]s observable in [[Kepler]]'s times were very circular. Kepler was the first to propose that the planets' orbits were elliptical, thus improving the accuracy and prediction-value of the heliocentric view of the solar system. [[Comet]]s, on the other hand, have highly [[eccentric]] orbits with only one [[focal point]] inside the [[Sun]].

The orbit of the [[Moon]] is nearly a perfect circle, but due to its high relative weight the center of its orbit is actually closer to the Earth's surface than to than it is to the exact center of the Earth.
[[category:physics]]

Animal Farm

2007-06-08T14:33:36Z

NItramNos:

[[Image:Animalfarm2.jpg|right|thumb]]
Animal Farm is a book written by [[socialist]] [[George Orwell]] in 1946. Satirical in nature, the story characterizes animals taking over a farm, symbolically alluding to the [[communist]] takeover of [[Russia]] and the betrayal of the people by their leaders, who impose a totalitatian system consolidating and perpetuating the power of those leaders.

==Characters==

'''Old Major''': A pig, and the leader of the animals before the revolution. He dies of old age before the revolt begins.

'''Boxer''': A very strong horse who is characterized by the phrase: "Napoleon is always right!" His attitude is very simplistic and uncaring, simply determining that, no matter how maniacal, the leadership on the farm is always right.

'''Mollie''': A female horse who is vain and shallow. Her low intelligence is seen in whatever she does, and she is easily led astray by flattery.

'''Snowball''': A pig who struggled with Napoleon for power. Possibly the most intelligent animal on the farm, he envisioned the windmill and much of the governance structure of the farm.

'''Napoleon''': Another pig who's lust for power will stop at nothing. While taking a stand against Snowball's ideas every time they come up, Napoleon rarely presents any of his own.

'''Squealer''': A porker who manages to convince, using lies, everyone on the farm to accept whatever Napoleon declares.

'''Farmer Jones''': The owner of Manor Farm before the animals revolt. A drunkard, but not a bad farmer, Jones was often negligent in caring for the animals.

'''Farmer Frederick''': The owner of the neighboring Pinchfield farm.

'''Farmer Pilkington''': The owner of the neighboring Foxwood farm.

'''Mr Whymper''': The 'face' of Animal Farm to the outside world.

==Representations of Characters==

'''Old Major''': [[Karl Marx]] and [[V.I. Lenin]]

'''Boxer''': The [[proletariat]]

'''Mollie''': The [[czar|czarist]] aristocracy

'''Snowball''': [[Leon Trotsky]]

'''Napoleon''': [[Joseph Stalin]]

'''Squealer''': [[Propaganda]] newspaper [[Pravda]]

'''Farmer Jones''': [[Czar]] [[Nicholas II]]

'''Farmer Frederick''': [[Adolf Hitler]]

'''Farmer Pilkington''': [[Winston Churchill]]

'''Mr Whymper''': [[George Bernard Shaw]]

==Online version==
The text is now in the [[Public domain]], and may be found at the [http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/ Orwell library].
[[category:fiction]]
[[category:book]]

Gonzales v. Oregon

2007-06-08T14:29:39Z

NItramNos: removed irrelevant comment

''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a 6-3 decision limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with local medical issues. Specifically, that case concerned a rule by the United States Attorney General John Ashcroft to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide, despite an Oregon law allowing this.

The decision established that states, not the federal government, regulate the practice of medicine:<ref>''Gonzales v. Oregon'', 546 U.S. at 275</ref>

:The Government, in the end, maintains that the prescription requirement delegates to a single Executive officer the power to effect a radical shift of authority from the States to the Federal Government to define general standards of medical practice in every locality. The text and structure of the [federal law] show that Congress did not have this far-reaching intent to alter the federal-state balance and the congressional role in maintaining it.

== Subsequent Decisions Relying on Gonzales v. Oregon ==

* ''Walker v. Eggleston'', 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60958 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2006)
* ''Bonds v. Tandy'', 457 F.3d 409, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 18121 (5th Cir. Miss. 2006)
* ''Toomer v. City Cab'', 443 F.3d 1191, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8079, 12 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P12-124, 17 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1360 (10th Cir. Utah 2006)
* ''Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs'', 464 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85132, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 319, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20236 (M.D. Fla. 2006)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Constellation

2007-06-08T14:28:24Z

NItramNos:

A '''constellation''' is a configuration of [[star]]s that stands out to the human eye as making up a group. In the imagination they sometimes resemble an animal or other object, and in ancient times, people in different civilizations assigned them names based on their perceived shape. In [[astronomy]] the heavens are divided into regions based on constellations as a point of reference and to help in the location of stars.

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Gene therapy

2007-06-08T14:23:04Z

NItramNos: genes may be functional yet be detrimental

'''Gene therapy''' is an evolving technique used to treat inheritied diseases. The medical procedure involves either replacing, manipulating, or supplementing nonfunctional or detrimental genes with healthy or beneficial genes.

== Sources ==
http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=gene%20therapy

[[Category:Genetics]]

Cloak room

2007-06-08T14:19:50Z

NItramNos:

[[Democrat|Democratic]] and [[Republican]] cloakrooms adjacent to the [[United States Senate|Senate]] chamber serve as gathering places for party members to discuss business informally and privately.<ref>[http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloakroom.htm] US Senate Reference</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:US Senate Terms]]

Musician

2007-06-08T14:18:49Z

NItramNos: added composition

A '''musician''' is an [[artist]] who creates [[music]]. Musicians may compose music, play [[musical instrument]]s or [[sing]]. Music may also be created through the use of a computer program.

[[Category:Music]]

Talk:Science fiction

2007-06-08T14:14:36Z

NItramNos: Hope you don't mind

== Hope you don't mind ==

I hope you don't mind that I made some edits to your article without first discussing them with you. The article is a excellent one, but I thought there should perhaps be a bit more emphasis on the exploration of philosophical and psychological questions as opposed to scientific theories, discoveries and inventions. I've been reading science fiction for more than 40 years, and have long been interested in both the entertaining and the serious sides of the genre. NitramNos 10:14, 8 June 2007 (EDT)