Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:David R

2007-04-20T15:17:43Z

Patriot101: /* Complaint */

<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; background-color: #00CCFF; color: white; height: 95px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: -3px; margin-left: -3px; width: 807px">

{{User Talk1}}
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #FFFFFF; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="color: #00CCFF">Archives [[User talk:David R/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #00CCFF; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; border:3px dashed #FFFFFF; width: 75%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: 5px; background: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">

Ha ha David. Great banner!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! :) I kind of borrowed from yours a bit and then changed a lot around. I still haven't fully grasped how to use divs in Wiki; my HTML tables don't seem to work very well. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks. ==

Honestly, I thought it was a programming error that my name was mentioned in his comment. Please forgive, I'm VERY new to the site. I haven't gotten a straight answer on this: Is any variant on the word Sex forbidden on this site?

Still, you should not have edited his comment. As for your question, I'm not exactly sure what you want to put up. I suppose a good safety measure is to not write anything you wouldn't like your little brother or sister to see. I don't know what that is for you, but you will certainly know if you cross the line. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== personal talk pages ==

I don't have a problem with someone clearing their own talk page. replace it if you must, please don't block someone for doing it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk pages can be placed in Archives, but they shouldn't be cleared. I don't know what user you really are, but last I heard, comments are not supposed to be deleted unless they're obscene. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:05, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Complaint==

Please, tell me how my edit violated any of those "Commandments". [[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

See [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment #3]]. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Please cite the commandment I violated and the Edit that violated it. Also, I think it should be added in the Commandments that conservative bias must be found in all edits. [[User:_Patriot101|_Patriot101

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Hard to read ==

The whit lettering on the bluish background ar hard to read, i suggest changing it to black lettering. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== ==

This looks like your MySpace... [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha....yeah, it was definitely a guideline. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== The word "parody" ==

Please forgive me for pointing this out... People are starting to use the word "parody" a little bit incorrectly, and it's starting to grate on me. If your comments were just typographical errors, my apologies.

A "parody" is to writing what a "caricature" is to sketching. A parody is a piece of writing which imitates its target, but exaggerates or warps it for comic effect. For example, the 1991 movie "Hot Shots!" was a parody of the movie "Top Gun."

The parody is the work, not the person who creates it.

In the context of Conservapedia, it is the remarks or articles which an insincere user writes, not the user himself. The user would properly be called '''a parodist,''' not "a parody." Similarly, one would not say "you are not that good a parody" but "you are not that good '''at''' parody." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

ACLU

2007-04-20T15:14:13Z

Patriot101:

[[Image:Nghfuyr.png|right|thumb|Current logo of the ACLU.]]
The '''ACLU''' is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by an American socialist named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920. This organization is devoted to protecting the civil liberties of Americans and defending them in court.

==Views of the ACLU Founder==

In 1934, Roger Baldwin published his goals in Soviet Russia Today:<ref>The Volokh Conspiracy (blog entry), Eugene Volokh, September 7, 2005 [http://volokh.com/posts/1126138099.shtml]</ref>

:I believe in non-violent methods of struggle as most effective in the long run for building up successful working class power. Where they cannot be followed or where they are not even permitted by the ruling class, obviously only violent tactics remain. I champion civil liberty as the best of the non-violent means of building the power on which workers rule must be based. If I aid the reactionaries to get free speech now and then, if I go outside the class struggle to fight against censorship, it is only because those liberties help to create a more hospitable atmosphere for working class liberties. The class struggle is the central conflict of the world; all others are incidental.

:Proletarian Liberty in Practice

:When that power of the working class is once achieved, as it has been only in the Soviet Union, I am for maintaining it by any means whatever. Dictatorship is the obvious means in a world of enemies at home and abroad. I dislike it in principle as dangerous to its own objects. But the Soviet Union has already created liberties far greater than exist elsewhere in the world. They are liberties that most closely affect the lives of the people — power in the trade unions, in peasant organizations, in the cultural life of nationalities, freedom of women in public and private life, and a tremendous development of education for adults and children. . . .

Baldwin and the ACLU purged any open communists from its ranks in 1940.

==ACLU Against the Boy Scouts==

The ACLU filed a lawsuit to prohibit the federal government from continuing to allow the [[Boy Scouts]], a charitable organization for teenagers, to use an Army base in Virginia for a quadrennial gathering. In 2005, more than 40,000 Boy Scouts attended this National Boy Scout Jamboree.

Although the Boy Scouts have been conducting this Jamboree for 70 years, this lawsuit was not filed until 1999, after the Boy Scouts enforced its policy against having openly homosexual Scout leaders. The theory of the lawsuit was that because Scouts swear an oath of "duty to God," it violates the Establishment Clause for the government to allow this joint project.

A federal district court ruled for the ACLU, but the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the lower court ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit which will allow the government to continue to sponsor this event for the Boy Scouts.<ref>See [[Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU]]</ref>

==ACLU and the Establishment Clause==
ACLU chapters frequently sue to compel removal of the Ten Commandments from public property. For example, in ''McCreary County v. ACLU'', 545 U.S. 844 (2005), the ACLU of Kentucky forced two counties to remove displays of the Ten Commandments from their courthouses. In Utah, the ACLU even announced a scavenger hunt for anyone who could find a display of the Ten Commandments monument that the ACLU could demand be removed. The ACLU typically receives substantial legal fees from the government in each of these cases.

In 1994, the ACLU of New Jersey sued Jersey City, New Jersey to challenge a menorah and a Christmas tree at city hall. A federal district judge declared the display to be unconstitutional, but the appellate court, in a 2-1 opinion written by now-Justice [[Samuel Alito]], found a modified display to be constitutional. ''ACLU of New Jersey v. Schundler'' (1999). Then-Judge Alito wrote, "government may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine."

Occasionally an ACLU chapter does side with a Christian student. The ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.<ref>ACLU: After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries (5/11/2004)
[http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html]</ref>

==ACLU, Evolution, and the Establishment Clause==
In 2004, the ACLU filed [[Selman v. Cobb County School District]].<ref>ACLU: Parents Challenge Evolution Disclaimer In Georgia Textbooks [http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/16381prs20041112.html]</ref> If the plaintiffs, five parents in the Georgia district, won the case, the school district would have to pay their lawyers. The ACLU argued <ref>ACLU Pretrial Brief in Selman et al v. Cobb County, 11/12/2004 [http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/ACFB940.pdf]</ref> that the district had violated the [[Establishment clause]] of the [[U.S. Constitution]] by putting stickers in biology textbooks that said, "This textbook contains material on [[evolution]]. Evolution is a [[theory]], not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."<ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref> The trial judge ruled in favor of the ACLU <ref>Judge's Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/religion/selmancobb11305ord.pdf]</ref>, but his ruling was vacated on appeal.<ref>Appeal Decision, Selman v. Cobb County School District[http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf]</ref> The case was eventually settled. The school district agreed to remove the stickers, to avoid altering science textbooks or making "any disclaimers regarding evolution", and to teach the state Board of Education's core curriculum, which includes evolution, although that wasn't under dispute in the original suit. In addition, they paid $166,669.12 to Atlanta law firm Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore.<ref>"Agreement Ends Textbook Sticker Case", press release from Cobb County School District including settlement agreement [http://www.cobb.k12.ga.us/news/2006/20061219_StickerAgreement.pdf]</ref> <ref>ACLU: Georgia School Board Drops Defense of Anti-Evolution Stickers[http://www.aclu.org/religion/intelligentdesign/27745prs20061219.html]</ref>

Another example of ACLU litigation was ''[[Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District]].''<ref>Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Decision of the Court, 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html]</ref>, also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting administrators from reading a short statement that mentions [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that Darwin's theory has gaps.<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref> In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] heavily relied on the later-vacated ruling in ''[[Selman v. Cobb County School District]]'', and on ACLU briefs.<ref>90% of the section on intelligent design was from the ACLU's briefs. A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs’ Proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law”, by David DeWolf & John West, Discovery Institute, December 12, 2006
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News]</ref> He also cited the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and the [[reasonable student standard]].<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The judge also ordered fees paid to the ACLU and its lawyers, totaling $2,067,000.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>

==Same-sex Marriage and Gay Equality==
The ACLU of New Jersey filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of same-sex marriage in ''Lewis v. Harris'', 188 N.J. 415 (1006). The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of civil unions, but by a 4-3 margin did not require same-sex marriage.

The ACLU sues schools when a student alleges encountering "anti-gay peer harassment and bullying based on his perceived sexual orientation." <ref>http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/youth/28618prs20070221.html</ref> The ACLU holds the school (and hence the taxpayers) liable for actions based on conduct by some students towards others.

The ACLU of Minnesota sued to force the Osseo Area School District to grant equal access to the schools public address (PA) system, yearbook, fundraising and field trips by a pro-homosexual school club named the Straights and Gays for Equality (“SAGE”).<ref>''Straights & Gays for Equality v. Osseo Area Schs.'', 471 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2006).</ref> The school district already had a club entitled "Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals, Transgender, Questioning and Allies," and already had a SAGE club, but SAGE was designated as non-curricular and wanted the additional rights of communication.

The ACLU invoked the Equal Access Act to argue that as long as the school district granted these rights to other clubs, such as cheerleading and synchronized swimming, it must grant these rights to SAGE also. No, the school district argued in defending its action, cheerleading is related to physical education while SAGE is not, and thus SAGE should not have the same rights. However, there were other non phys-ed sports that got funding.

The district court ruled in favor of the ACLU, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit unanimously affirmed. The Court ordered the school district to give SAGE the same rights as the cheerleading club. The ACLU will be able to demand substantial attorneys' fees at taxpayer expense.

==Abortion==
The ACLU is against any laws restricting what they see as the Right to Choose. ACLU attorneys have argued several reproductive rights cases.
==Polygamy==
The ACLU has defended [[polygamy|polygamists]]{{fact-political}}.

==ACLU and Fight against Racism==
Along with the [[NAACP]], led at the time by [[Thurgood Marshall]], the ACLU briefed and argued many influential Supreme Court opinions that led to the eradication of legal segregation.<ref>Examples: [[Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483]]</ref> They have continued to defend racial equality since.<ref>http://www.aclu.org/racialjustice</ref> Even recently, the ACLU fought to overturn prohibitions against renting buildings to immigrants<ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/ss/news082206_3.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/blog/baldwin.pdf Baldwin speaks in defense of communism from 1934]
*Pro-ACLU sites:
**http://www.aclu.org
*Anti-ACLU sites:
**http://www.stoptheaclu.com/
**http://www.aclj.org

[[category:politics]]
[[category:liberal activists]]

Elephant

2007-04-20T15:08:39Z

Patriot101:

[[Image:elephant.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Image from http://www.sxc.hu/]]
The '''elephants''' are three species of very large mammals belonging to the family Elephantidae - the only extant family belonging to the order Proboscidea. The three elephant species currently recognized by scientists are the African [[Bush]] Elephant, the African [[Forest]] Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). A distinct giant [[India]]n forest elephant is also believed to exist by some. [http://www.blather.net/blather/1998/07/mammoth_hunt_the_giant_elephants_of_nepa.html]

Elephants are the largest land animals alive today and thankfully have tripled in population over the last decade. Apart from their massive size their most striking features are a long trunk, or proboscis, a flexible nose strong enough to lift objects, their huge [[ivory]] tusks, and their large flapping ears, used to keep them cool.

Bull elephants, when inclined to mate, enter a frenzied state called ''musth''; they fight with each other for possession of the cow elephants, and become a menace to everything in their path; many humans are killed at this time. Elephants' gestation period, at 22 months, is the longest of any land mammal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer.

The largest elephant ever recorded (the Fenykovi elephant, now in the [[Smithsonian Institution]]) was shot in [[Angola]] in 1954. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb), with a shoulder height of 4.2m, a meter taller than the average male African elephant.

==Uses of Elephants==

Elephants (today generally Indian, but historically African elephants also) have been used as beasts of burden and draught animals, as mounts in processions and in war (notably by [[Hannibal]]), playing [[polo]], and as [[circus]] performers.

==Elephants in the Bible==

The Apocryphal book [[1 Maccabees]] mentions thirty-two elephants sent by the Persian king Antiochus to attack [[Judas Machabeus]]. Numerous references are made to [[ivory]], a substance created from their tusks and worth great amounts.

==Genetic studies==

Molecular and morphological evidence point to [[hyrax|hyraxes]] and [[Sirenia|sirenians]] (sea cows and manatees) as the closest living relatives of elephants<ref> Hidenori Nishihara et al. A Retroposon Analysis of Afrotherian Phylogeny. ''Molecular Biology and Evolution'' '''22''': 1823-1833,</ref> these groups are hypothesized to have shared a common ancestor approximately 50 million years ago. The three extant species of elephant are sole survivors of a much more diverse Proboscidian fauna with some 170 described [[fossil]] species and including species of [[mammoth]] from [[North America]] and the massive ''Deinotherium'', the second largest land mammal that ever lived, which sported two downward facing tusks.

==Trivia==

*Elephants are said to go to a legendary ''elephants graveyard'' to die.
*A ''white elephant'' (from the historical veneration of such animals in Southeast Asia) is the term for a possession whose upkeep cost exceeds its expense, making it an overall liability.
*An elephant is the symbol of the [[Republican Party]].
*Elephants are said to never forget.
*Elephants are said to be afraid of [[mouse|mice]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]

Reality

2007-04-20T15:06:52Z

Patriot101: better explanation

"Reality is a commodity" ~ Stephen Colbert

Global warming

2007-04-20T15:03:21Z

Patriot101: Explanation of a view point.

The '''global warming controversy''' centers on the controversial theory that the earth's atmosphere is heating up at a dangerous rate, because of human activities such as [[greenhouse gas]] emissions from burning [[fossil fuels]] (see [[Anthropogenic global warming]]). Some scientists feel that immediate (not to say drastic) action must be taken to reduce these omissions (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).

The theory enjoys wide political support, though some climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it. The United Nations' climate panel ([[UNIPCC]]) has assessed the theory and found that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of it. Scientists [[Richard Lindzen]] and John Christy, among others, deny that such a consensus exists.{{fact}}

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the matter, there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==
[[Image:Co2 concentration.gif|thumb|right|Graph of CO2 concentration from 1900 to 2000<ref>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm</ref>]]
The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the [[greenhouse effect]].'

This is the phenomenon that occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 ºF. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of climate change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The [[United Nations]] says that scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>, but individual scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]], [[John Cristy]], and [[Fred Singer]] say that there is no scientific consensus.

Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by many scientists. Point #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact-political}}

== Al Gore and politics ==

Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists and uneducated celebrities, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://www.climatecrisis.net/] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled [http://www.video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle].<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws.{{fact-science}} One scientist appearing in it, Carl Wunsch, complained that he had been misled<ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>, and are is considering legal action against the documentary makers for misrepresenting him. However, he also released a letter to him from the producers wherein they DID inform him of their polemic intent:

*The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. <ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]

== The Conservative view ==

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about how much of the change is natural, and what a viable response should be.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

Recently, a group of eleven retired American Generals urged the Bush administration to act on climate change as it "poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm</ref>

==Lindzen's View Point==

The main opposition that Lindzen has against alarmists of global warming is that storms wll not be strengthened and dissenters are quieted with money and fear. He explains how American politics and business is capable of overrcoming scientifique opinions that go against global warming. Especially when they are becoming popular culture like Global warming is.<ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>

However, with the equator warming much faster than the poles, the hurricaine creating oceans getting warmer than 27 degrees celsius, and stored solar energy in the atmosphere, studies show that the amount of violent storms will increase. In the last decade, we have had more devasting category 4 or 5 storms recorded than ever before. His second claim on the silencing of scientists is a wild accusation at governments across the globe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was based on the research of over 2,500 scientists from 100 nations across the globe and consistantly supports the majority of the American and global scientific community.<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0921-01.htm</ref>
== Evangelical view ==

In February of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initiative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==

The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals. However, some peer-reviewed articles have attacked the basic notion of a [[global temperature]].<ref>http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf</ref>

== Global warming advocacy Websites ==

:[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
:[http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
:[http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
:[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

== Global warming Skeptist ==

:[http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit]
:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Richard Lindzen's ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial]
:[http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle Global Warming Swindle] Documentary Film

==Further Readings==

:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks] by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli
:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming] by Richard Lindzen
:[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a Global Temperature Exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2006.
:[http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/climate.pdf Nuclear Pwer and Climate Change]
:[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5469/1177?ijkey=HjRwmLXvnb.CM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change?]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:earth science]]
[[category:ecology]]

Global warming

2007-04-20T03:51:25Z

Patriot101:

The '''global warming controversy''' centers on the controversial theory that the earth's atmosphere is heating up at a dangerous rate, because of human activities such as [[greenhouse gas]] emissions from burning [[fossil fuels]] (see [[Anthropogenic global warming]]). Some scientists feel that immediate (not to say drastic) action must be taken to reduce these omissions (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).

The theory enjoys wide political support, though some climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it. The United Nations' climate panel ([[UNIPCC]]) has assessed the theory and found that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of it. Scientists [[Richard Lindzen]] and John Christy, among others, deny that such a consensus exists.{{fact}}

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the matter, there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==
[[Image:Co2 concentration.gif|thumb|right|Graph of CO2 concentration from 1900 to 2000<ref>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm</ref>]]
The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the [[greenhouse effect]].'

This is the phenomenon that occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 ºF. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of climate change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The [[United Nations]] says that scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>, but individual scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]], [[John Cristy]], and [[Fred Singer]] say that there is no scientific consensus.{{fact-science}}

Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by many scientists. Point #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact-political}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists and uneducated celebrities, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://www.climatecrisis.net/] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled [http://www.video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle].<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws.{{fact-science}} One scientist appearing in it, Carl Wunsch, complained that he had been misled<ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>, and are is considering legal action against the documentary makers for misrepresenting him. However, he also released a letter to him from the producers wherein they DID inform him of their polemic intent:

*The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. <ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

Recently, a group of eleven retired American Generals urged the Bush administration to act on climate change as it "poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm</ref>

==Falsity of Lindzen==

The main opposition that Lindzen has against "alarmists" of global warming is that storms wll not be strengthened and dissenters are quieted with money and fear. The first claim has slightly more merit than the second, because his point on the rising humidity has some validity. However, with the equator warming much faster than the poles, the hurricaine creating oceans getting warmer than 27 degrees celsius, and stored solar energy in the atmosphere, studies show that the amount of violent storms will increase. In the last decade, we have had more devasting category 4 or 5 storms recorded than ever before. His second claim on the silencing of scientists is a wild accusation at governments across the globe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was based on the research of over 2,500 scientists from 100 nations across the globe and consistantly supports the majority of the American and global scientific community.<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0921-01.htm</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals. However, some peer-reviewed articles have attacked the basic notion of a [[global temperature]].<ref>http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf</ref>

== Global warming advocacy Websites ==
:[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
:[http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
:[http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
:[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
:[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

== Global warming Skeptist ==
:[http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit]
:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Richard Lindzen's ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial]
:[http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle Global Warming Swindle] Documentary Film

==Further Readings==
:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks] by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli
:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming] by Richard Lindzen
:[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a Global Temperature Exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2006.
:[http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/climate.pdf Nuclear Pwer and Climate Change]
:[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5469/1177?ijkey=HjRwmLXvnb.CM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change?]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:earth science]]
[[category:ecology]]

Global warming

2007-04-20T03:26:23Z

Patriot101:

The '''global warming controversy''' centers on the scientifically accepted theory that the earth's atmosphere is heating up at a dangerous rate, because of human activities such as [[greenhouse gas]] emissions from burning [[fossil fuels]] (see [[Anthropogenic global warming]]). Some scientists feel that immediate (not to say drastic) action must be taken to reduce these omissions (see [[Kyoto Protocol]]).

The theory enjoys wide political support, though some climatologists and meteorologists disagree with it. The United Nations' climate panel ([[UNIPCC]]) has assessed the theory and found that there is a "scientific consensus" in favor of it. Scientists [[Richard Lindzen]] and John Christy, among others, deny that such a consensus exists.{{fact}}

Whether or not there is a scientific consensus on the matter, there is wide agreement among the American public that Global Warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of Global Warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that Global Warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority 8% believe that Global Warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>

The name is inaccurate, and should be '''Global Climate Change''', as the increasing amount of heat stored in the atmosphere has had disruptive effects leading to colder weather in some areas.

== Scientific background ==
[[Image:Co2 concentration.gif|thumb|right|Graph of CO2 concentration from 1900 to 2000<ref>http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm</ref>]]
The theory of climate change concerns many varied factors, but one of the most commonly cited is that of 'the [[greenhouse effect]].'

This is the phenomenon that occurs when high energy solar radiation loses energy upon entry to the Earth's atmosphere. It then is 'trapped' inside it, thus heating up the Earth, to the extent of approximately 25 ºF. It cannot escape, however, as it has a lower frequency and thus cannot re-penetrate the atmosphere. This is essential for the survival on life on Earth, but proponents of climate change theory argue that this system is being unbalanced by a human-caused (anthropogenic) increase in levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, which trap more heat in, raising the overall temperature. They argue that this would have numerous adverse effects; it could cause polar ice to melt, thus raising sea levels, and could cause desertification to already vulnerable regions. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/evidence/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml</ref>

== History ==
The [[United Nations]] says that scientific theory is widely accepted within the scientific community<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/</ref>, but individual scientists such as [[Richard Lindzen]], [[John Cristy]], and [[Fred Singer]] say that there is no scientific consensus.{{fact-science}}

Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are skeptical of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.

:1) The theory that we are currently in a period of climate change consisting of increasing temperature, which, if it were to continue, would have important socio-economic consequences well within the next century.

:2) The theory that this change is caused by increasing CO2 gasses and a resulting "greenhouse" effect.

:3) The theory that this change is caused by human activity, mostly industrial emissions of carbon-based "greenhouse gasses."
Much of the discussion of climate change concerns

:4) The proposal that global warming can and should be reversed by taking large-scale international action to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Point #1 has become very widely accepted in the past few decades, even by conservatives who were once skeptical, but argue that the rising temperature is due to other factors. <ref>http://www.nationalcenter.org/WCT012304.html</ref> <ref>http://www.californiaconservative.org/liberals/global-warming-an-ardent-liberal-opens-up/</ref>
<ref>http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/91239/48194</ref>

Point #1 is argued against by those showing record cold temperatures around the globe. These record cold spells tend to be in isolated locations, and the arctic and antarctic, telling indicators of global temperature trends, are both heating, and fast. <ref>http://www.physorg.com/news2860.html</ref> <ref>http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/productDisplay.php?product=BOSRERBOS</ref> <ref>http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBMGIO0.html</ref>

Points #2 and point #3 are more controversial, although widely accepted by many scientists. Point #3 is the one most attacked by global warming skeptics.

Point #4 is what the political and international debate are about. Both climate change itself, and the very large-scale actions that are proposed to combat it, would have enormous economic effects with identifiable winners and losers, resulting in an intense debate. For example, since the industrialized nations emit most of the CO2, if it were agreed that these emissions needed to be reduced sharply, the burden would fall much more heavily on these nations than on undeveloped nations. {{fact-political}}

== Al Gore and politics ==
Al Gore, Vice President under President Clinton from 1992 to 2000, is a high profile advocate of the full global warming theory. Promoters of this theory, including many prominent scientists and uneducated celebrities, call for international treaties, like one proposed in Kyoto, Japan, to limit carbon emissions using a combination of conservation and technological innovation.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotorpt.html</ref>

The theory is widely accepted within the scientific community, though that is not to say there is unanimity.<ref>Myths of Global Warming[http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html]</ref><ref>No Evidence for Global Warming[http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed012298b.cfm]</ref> On February 2, 2007, an international panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone."<ref>Borenstein, Seth (2007), "Warming 'Likely' Man-Made, Unstoppable." Associated Press, as published by Forbes[http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/02/02/ap3388409.html]</ref>

Al Gore's film [http://www.climatecrisis.net/] (already available on DVD that was reviewed by experts {{fact}} and in [http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency-Warming/dp/1594865671 book format]) has recently been challenged by an entertaining and informative documentary on Channel 4 in the UK entitled [http://www.video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle The Great Global Warming Swindle].<ref> http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html</ref>. Despite the popularity of the Channel 4 documentary, experts claim it has flaws.{{fact-science}} One scientist appearing in it, Carl Wunsch, complained that he had been misled<ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>, and are is considering legal action against the documentary makers for misrepresenting him. However, he also released a letter to him from the producers wherein they DID inform him of their polemic intent:

*The aim of the film is to examine critically the notion that recent global warming is primarily caused by industrial emissions of CO2. It explores the scientific evidence which jars with this hypothesis and explores alternative theories such as solar induced climate change. <ref>http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/responseto_channel4.htm</ref>

Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/science/13gore.html?_r=1&oref=slogin]

== The conservative view ==
Just as the pro-global warming scientists are benefiting from promoting global warming, the global warming skeptical scientists have had funding from energy companies. <ref>http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html</ref> It can be said that they profit from energy stock, just as well as the pro-global warming scientists. However, the skeptics are not selling carbon credits, but they are profiting from selling alternative energy products and services. {{fact}}

In the UK, Conservatives propose a bill that will tax flights to combat climate change.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6438685.stm</ref> Governor of California [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] signed the Global Warming Solutions Act to try and curb global warming.<ref>http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/</ref> The Pentagon has told [[George W. Bush]] that global warming is a real threat.<ref>http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html</ref> [[George W. Bush]] admits that global warming is a problem, but that there is still some debate about it.<ref>http://www.people.com/people/article/0,26334,1210402,00.html</ref>

Recently, a group of eleven retired American Generals urged the Bush administration to act on climate change as it "poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6557803.stm</ref>

== Evangelical view ==
In Febuary of 2006, eighty-six evangelical church leaders backed an initative to combat global warming.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html</ref> This call to action acknowledges the growing body of evidence that global warming is happening and acknowledges the pledge in 2004 that humans have "a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the [[creation]] of which we are a part." <ref>http://www.christiansandclimate.org/statement</ref> This stance is not held by all evangelical church leaders; some of whom claim that this is distracting from other social issues.
<ref>http://www.creationcare.org/files/global_warming_briefing.pdf</ref>

A sharp difference of opinion over which issues ought to top the political agenda of Christian conservatives spilled out into the open at a March 8th meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals. Rev. Richard Cizik has been outspoken on the global warming issue, saying in a recent documentary that "to harm this world by environmental degradation is an offense against God." Cizik warned that "if you put the politics first and make it primary, I believe that is a tragic and fateful choice." The NAE has issued a press release which continues to back Cizik. <ref>http://www.abpnews.com/1833.article</ref>

== Conflicting Opinions/Data ==
The global warming theory is a scientific theory, that has been supported by many peer-reviewed journal articles, published in highly respected international scientific journals. However, some peer-reviewed articles have attacked the basic notion of a [[global temperature]].<ref>http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf</ref>

== Global warming advocacy Websites ==
:[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ Climate Crisis] Educational website that offers information about An inconvenient truth.
:[http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/ Stop Global Warming] Sells books on stopping global warming, has a list of companies selling global warming items.
:[http://www.climateark.org/blog/ Climate Change Blog] Links to other global warming blogs.
:[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topics/global+warming Huffington Post Global Warming Blog] Appears to promote news paper and advertising by promoting global warming.
:[http://www.realclimate.org Real Climate] Blogs maintained by scientists in the field

== Global warming Skeptist ==
:[http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit]
:[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 Richard Lindzen's ''Wall Street Journal'' editorial]
:[http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+Warming+Swindle Global Warming Swindle] Documentary Film

==Further Readings==
:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks] by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli
:[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/~motl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf The Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming] by Richard Lindzen
:[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a Global Temperature Exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2006.
:[http://www.nea.fr/html/ndd/climate/climate.pdf Nuclear Pwer and Climate Change]
:[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5469/1177?ijkey=HjRwmLXvnb.CM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change?]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:earth science]]
[[category:ecology]]

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-04-20T03:25:06Z

Patriot101: /* Theory 3 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Einsteins Theory of Relativity explained how light appears to move at different speeds when the distance is great and the relative speeds are great as it often is in planetary physics. However, this in no way means that c is not a universal constant. Nothing exsists in nature with a real velocity that is relative to the distance it is being viewed.

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?

2007-04-20T03:16:07Z

Patriot101:

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

Well, I would venture to say that we have not seen the far off ones yet. We can only see the light that has reached the Earth so far. This means that the currently-visible stars are "only" several thousand lightyears away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 17:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Empircally false. Basic parallax data gets us that there are stars at least 7000 years away and more sophisticated techniques force other stars to be even farther away. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 18:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: What's more of that were true then why have ancient civilisations recorded lots of the stars that were now see? shouldn't there be masses of new ones that the light of which has reached us in the proceeding years? [[User:Ampasand|Ampasand]] 11:23 29 march 2007 (GMT+12)

:The speed of light, Einstein called it "c" is a universal constant. In order for us to see something, light must travel from that object to our eyes. This is how our eyes work. But, the Universe is far older than earth. For all we know, the earth could be infinitely old. Light which left stars that were 7000-8000 light years away is reaching our eyes now, even if the stars are no longer there. Further more, the creation and destruction of stars in a universe as vast as ours can sometimes go un-noticed if not specifically documented. Today, we find new stars occasionally because we have extensive equipment with which to survey the skies. Ancient civiliations didn't. ~Patriot101.

Perhaps, the Universe really is billions of years old. Perhaps the Genisis account is merely refering to the creation etc. from the perspective of the Earth. Perhaps God is, say, eternal. Couldn't matter and the elements be eternal too? {{Unsigned|Brigham's Homeboy}}

:That's very close to the white-hole cosmology of Russell Humphreys (see below). According to it, the ''fringes'' of the universe are billions of years old, but the ''near-center'' of the universe--where we are--is much younger. In short, time did not flow uniformly throughout the universe--and until relatively recently, in our region, time did not flow at all.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Theory 2==
When God created the universe, he also created a complete ray of light extending between the star and the Earth. The light that we see ''now'' was created only a few thousand years ago. It looks as if it came from the star, but it really didn't; it was created in mid-air, or mid-space as it were, a few thousand light-years away. The light that started travelling from the star itself at its instant of creation will not reach us for millions of years (or perhaps never if the Earth does not last that long).

<
* = star
- = ray of light
O = Earth
> = where the light we see today was when the Universe was created

BEFORE CREATION:
[Void]
AFTER CREATION of star, Earth, ''and'' complete ray of light all at the same instant
*------------------------------------------------->----O

A few thousand years after Creation (today)
*----------------------------------------------------->O

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

Millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------- O

Millions and millions of years later (still can't see star)
*--------------------------------------------- O

Millions and millions and millions of years later (finally can see star)
*------------------------------------------------------O

The language of the Bible, "Let there be light," even can be read as supporting this.

This theory is absolutely ridiculous. The stars we see in the sky are millions of light years away, and we can see them because the earth has existed for far longer than a few thousand years. Astronomers can tell roughly how old a star is, and they know that the ones you see at night are older than a few thousand years.

No, I do not believe this. (But I can't prove it's not true.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:27, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Dpbsmith: This is the essence of why this is religion not science, it can't be proven/disproven... [[User:Jesput|Jespur]]

: Jesput, the same is true for science. Science cannot prove anything at all. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This is a variant of omphalism and essentially asserts that God has deliberately deceived humans. I don't think most people would want to believe in a deceptive deity and in any event, it would contradict the verse in Isaiah that says that God is truth. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:01, 10 March 2007 (EST)

: Couldn't God have added the verse in Isaiah to make us believe that He is saying the truth? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 04:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

If God is trying to fake us out, He certainly did His best to make it a CONVINCING fake. Just check out those scientists who've been fooled into thinking an entire galaxy was ripped in two several billion years ago. <ref> [http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070302_galaxy_rip.html Galaxy Ripped to Shreds]</ref>{{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

: I'm sorry, this is a nice theory, but JoshuaZ is right, it's a type of omphalism, and assumes that God deliberately tricked us. At some point, [[Occam's Razor]] has to kick in here. But wow, this light argument sure does rip YEC to shreds.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::The theory does not insinuate that God is deceptive. In Genesis, he talks to Abraham about his descendants and how they will be as numerous as the stars in the sky. What if God made the stars like that, not to deceive humans in any way, but to use them for His own purpose, such as using them as a metaphor? (By the way, how is making rays of light any form of deception? How are we being "tricked" by this creation?) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Rays of light carry information; they're records of past events. If light was really created in transit, then we've witnessed the death of stars which never actually existed in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Descartes approached a similar problem in his meditations. The way out of it was to say that since God is good, God would not do something to intentionally deceive our senses and thus we can trust them. I believe that it is valid to continue that to say that it is reasonable to trust our extended senses that this planet is a several billion years old. Otherwise (as Descartes would say), God is a deceiver and then would not be the most perfect being that can be imagined. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Fraid that's the logical conclusion. Then again, [[theory of evolution|a lot of things on this site]] are quite disconnected from logic.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 10:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 3 ==

C is not actually constant. All measurements on Earth indicate that it is, but beyond our Solar System it could easily be faster, slower, moving through wormholes to appear faster, etc. Hubble's Law says that the farther away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away due to universal expansion, so why couldn't light be similarly expanded with distance? So many of our assumptions about the universe rely on our belief that things happen the same way everywhere - a huge leap of faith for a scientist. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 13:05, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't know whether you knew, but the official definition of the [[meter]] now assumes that C is constant. The meter is defined in terms of C! Someone needs to set up some periodic re-measurements of the orange-red line from the spectrum of [[krypton]]-86 that provided the most recent definition of the meter: 1,650,763.73 wavelengths of this radiation. If that number starts to rise, then we know that C is slowing, as [[Barry Setterfield]] has stated.

:I have another variation on this theory, however: what if C were originally much faster, is now the speed at which we now find it, and is not going to change anymore? Except that I have an [[Occam's razor]] problem with that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't dispute at all that the meter is based upon C, but it hardly matters whether it is or not. Either C is constant or it isn't, no matter what units you use. Rather than C slowing since time began, I was thinking more the velocity of C being a function of its distance away from us. Also, your theory satisfies Occam's razor equally well or better than the Big Bang does, so I see no problem with it logically. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 03:28, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

This hypothosis sounds awkwardly non-falsifyable. It is proposed that light used to travel faster than it does today, but conveniently stoped slowing down before measurement became possible. How can it be determined either way? Also, this would not be a slight slowdown... its going to require light travel a lot faster. The most distant objects known are ten billion light-years away<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1432321.stm</ref>. So, even assuming light slowed from its super-speed to todays speed in a single instant as soon as civilisation emerged, thats going to require it used to travel about 1.67 million times as fast as today to achieve the 6000-year target figure. Im not a physicist, but I dont think thats even remotely possible. A little variation, perhaps, but a factor that huge... it would require adjusting too many other figures to keep the formulae valid. Permiativity of free space, planks constant, a lot of very fundamental things. -- Suricou

::Actually, the [[Hubble Ultra Deep Field]] picture includes galaxies from around 13 billion years ago. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:The basic problem with any variable-c model is that the entire observational record is exactly consistent with constant c. So we're left with two types of model; the one Terry mentions, where c changed in an unobservable way in the distant past, and the one Daniel mentions, where c is different in other parts of the Universe, but these differences manage to leave every observation we make exactly as we would expect if no such change had happened. That essentially leaves us with two different ways of saying "sure, the Universe ''looks'' old, but because of an unobservable, untestable effect, it really isn't." Which may be ''true'', but it'll never be good science. May as well propose that we all live in the Matrix and be done with it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, theory is out - of course, should have realised earlier. If C is altered, the knock-on effect ould include a shift in emmission spectrum. That would be very easily observed in distant stars. As it isn't observed, that means C must be constantish. Perhaps just a little variation, but not a 1.67-million-times factor. I think that just about kills the 'C is faster elsewhere' idea. - Suricou

== White-hole Cosmology ==
The universe began as a white hole. Initially, as matter expanded into it, time did not flow--because the very space-time continuum had four dimensions of space and none of time. Eventually, time began to flow at the outer fringes of the expanding ball of matter, and this region of timeliness worked its way back to the center. So the earth really is six thousand or so years old--by clocks on the earth, which are the only clocks that need to matter to us. By any clock on the outer fringes, the cosmos might well be twenty billion years old. The light impinges on us now because it was always impinging on the border of the region of timelessness until that region shrank away to nothing.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology White hole cosmology] by [[CreationWiki]]</ref>--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:15, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Not bad, what about the four-day simultaneous harmonic Time Cube?<ref>[http://timecube.com/ Time Cube] by Doctor Gene Ray</ref> {{Unsigned|Fullmetajacket}}

:Cute. Very cute. And incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:36, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:Falsified by the distinct absence of massive blueshifting of distant light sources. I highly doubt anybody's even attempted to formalize this as a solution to Einstein's field equations, either, which would be a prerequisite for it to be considered a coherent proposition at all. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I dug out a few of Humphrey's papers defending this model and reached two basic conclusions. One, as I suspected, there ''is'' no model, merely handwaving. Two, he doesn't actually understand GR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's obvious, given the idiocy of the theory. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 09:23, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For those who are interested, I get into some of the problems with Humphreys' model(s) [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|here]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:14, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Silliness ==
Physics has had for many years more-than-adequate explanations. All of these verbal acrobatics into non-falsifiable theories to try to get around physical fact are humorus. Wouldn't it be easier for those who deny physics to just say "I accept physics, and God is mysterious and powerful enough to make it happen."?
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Proverbs 25:2

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 22:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wise words [[User:Cracker|Cracker]], wise words indeed. --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 19:33, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== This About Kills YEC ==
The Starlight Problem is scientifically unsolvable assuming a young universe. You either have to make up pseudoscience, or concede that YEC is based on faith alone, but science disproves it. Agreed?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Theory 4? ==
While it is perhaps not a direct answer to the question, a very plausible explanation is that the universe is ''not'' young, and that light from distant stars has therefore had ample time to reach Earth.--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 22:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why 6000 years? ==

Why 6000 years? I mean the Bible doesn't mention when the universe was created anywhere, the date of 4000 BC was actually thought up by scholars in the 17th century [http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date1.htm], so I don't really see why people try to defend that date as if it were God's word.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Because when you start at 562 BC (the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]], and then subtract lengths of reign of the last eight kings of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of ancient [[Israel]], and then go back through the synchronized starts-of-reign of the kings of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and Southern, and then take the time between the Exodus and the groundbreaking of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]], add a time for the Sojourn in Egypt, and then backtrack the birthdates of the patriarchs and go clear back to Adam, you arrive at 4004 BC if you assume a "late-in-life siring" of [[Abraham]] by his father, and a "short sojourn" in Egypt. What we defend is the proposition that the earth is no older than are these generations of the patriarchs, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, and so forth up to the present day. The Bible does not allow for an unnamed and large number of years between the birth of the [[earth]] and the creation of [[Adam]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what about that flood and the civilization of Atlantis, did that civilization just sprung up out of no where? And if Noah really did repopulate the Earth (I'm thinking there would be some serious inbreed issues there) wouldn't that have taken a while as well?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I can't comment on Atlantis, because I have seen no documentation that I would consider reliable. If you can document that a city named Atlantis actually existed, then by all means put a message on my Talk page or send me an e-mail. Or better yet, write an article of your own titled "Atlantis" and fill it in with everything you know.

:Concerning Noah, of course that took awhile. But the generations from Noah to Abraham were about ten, give or take. Why not go to {{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=11|verses=10-26|version=KJV}} and count them? Notice also that the lifespans of the generations from Shem to Abraham dropped about ninety percent, and in a hurry.

:Concerning inbreeding: The tremendous lifespans of pre-Flood man suggest strongly that the damaging ionizing radiation that creates so much genetic damage today, simply wasn't an issue. Again, the lifespan of man dropped, and dropped hard, after the Flood. Thus, inbreeding wasn't such a hazard then as it is today.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 15:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Atlantis is just what I call the civilization Noah was born in, but 10 generations, that would give, starting with 4 breeding couples and assuming every couple of every generation has 6 healthy children: 8*(3^10) = 470.000 people by 2000 BC, while archealogists assume a world population of 30 million around that time, of course archaelogists also found a lot of things older than 6000 years, including human settlements.

As for the inbreeding, don't make up pseudoscience as you go along, degeneration is caused by the way genetics works, radiation would only make it worse, but is not the main factor.

And no, humans cannot live for 900 years, not without very advanced technology anyway.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== References ==
<references/>

Definition of evolution

2007-04-20T03:03:34Z

Patriot101:

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but today, the origin of life from non-living compounds on the earth is generally refered to as Chemical Evolution.

Biological Evolution is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this defintion with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

The problem with the creationists arguement against evolution is that they ignore the factor of time. If the earth has been around for 6 billion years, then macro evolution, or the "gain of genetic information" can be witnessed. Examples of this are the dinosaurs, whose bone structures are nearly identical to that of modern day birds, but also very closely related to reptiles. This is explained by geological and reproductive isolation which cause the gradual change into those two different Phyla.

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. (teacher in CNN article)

This apparently refers to the assertion that the appearance of new forms of life is supported by fossils (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes." [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/]

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]

Definition of evolution

2007-04-20T02:51:29Z

Patriot101:

The word '''"evolution"''' as used in [[Biology]] and in the [[Origins debate]] has multiple meanings. It is not easy to keep track of which meaning is being used.

Several different meanings have been and still are used, and this is itself part of the controversy over the [[Theory of Evolution]].

[[Creationist]]s charge that evolutionists often equivocate between different meanings<ref>See, for example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2891#Definitions Definitions as slippery as eels] in ''Who’s really pushing ‘bad science’?'', by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, while [[evolutionist]]s acknowledge that not clearly defining the term leads to confusion.<ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution?] by Laurence Moran.</ref>

== Etymology==

The word ''evolution'' comes from Latin, meaning ''unrolling''<ref>[http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evolution?view=uk AskOxford.com.</ref>, and refers to any gradual change. But it has more precise definitions in popular and scientific use.

=== Universal ===

The broadest definition, '''change in the history of the universe''', includes biological change, and non-biological change, such as galaxy formation. [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous."<ref>Quoted by Stephen E. Jones at [http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/evolut01.html]</ref>

=== Development of life ===

Kerkut defined the [[General Theory of Evolution]] as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form"<ref>''Implications of Evolution'', p. 157, by Kerkut, G.A., quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1627 Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution?] by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>
As stated, this includes the origin of life ([[abiogenesis]]), but today, the origin of life from non-living compounds on the earth is generally refered to as Chemical Evolution.

Biological Evolution is defined as the development of life from some last universal common ancestor, from which all plants, animals, fungi, and other life on Earth are directly descended.

Webster's dictionary put it as, "...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny"<ref Name="TO">Quoted in [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html What is Evolution], by Laurence Moran.</ref>

This is the main concept behind the definition provided by the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary (although this definition has been criticised in other aspects<ref>Laurence Moran on Talk.Origins criticises the definition for excluding prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, and for specifying ''gradual'' changes, and other reasons.</ref>): "The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years".<ref name="TO" />

In an attempt to clearly and concisely clarify which definition they are using, creationists sometimes refer to this defintion with terms such as "goo-to-you" evolution<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>, "molecules-to-man" evolution,<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/403/ Speedy species surprise], by David Catchpoole and Carl Wieland, ''Creation'' vol. 23 No. 2, p. 13.</ref> or "fish-to-philosopher" evolution<ref>For example, footnote 1 in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/281 Professing creation], by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, ''Creation'' vol. 22 No. 1, p. 36.</ref>.

It is primarily evolution of this definition that creationists disagree with.

=== Gene frequency ===

In modern scientific use, it is often defined as a '''change in gene frequency'''.

E.O. Wilson defines evolution as "any change in gene frequency in a population." Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes define evolution as "any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next"<ref Name="TO" />

Creationists object that this definition is used to demonstrate trivial changes that are then used to claim that the entire development of life definition has been demonstrated.<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3262/ Refuting Evolution 2], by Jonathan Sarfati, chapter 3.</ref> This definition has also been criticised by [[Ernst Mayr]].<ref>Referred to in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2722/ CMI misunderstands evolution?].</ref>

The "gene frequency" definition avoids the distinction between [[microevolution]] and [[macroevolution]] - a distinction which is important to anti-evolutionists.

=== Increasing genetic information ===
Creationists define evolution as being an increase in genetic [[information]].<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/599 Beetle Bloopers], ''Creation'' 19(3):30</ref> In order to go from the hypothesised first living cell to the variety of creatures that exist today, evolution needs to add massive quantities of genetic information, such as for hair, eyes, blood, and wings. Creationists argue that the following do not constitute evolution, because no new genetic information is generated:
* Losses of genetic information, through mutations or natural or artificial selection.
* Transfer of existing genetic information from one living thing to another.
* Duplication of existing genetic information.
These processes have all been observed, but creationists argue that what has not been observed is the generation of new genetic information.<ref>Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3268 Chapter 5, Refuting Evolution 2]</ref>

== Scientific theory, philosophy, or religion ==

In addition to the disagreement over the definition, there is disagreement on whether evolution constitutes a scientific theory or a philosophy or religion.

[[Theistic evolution]]ists believe that evolution has been guided by God, but most others claim that evolution is unguided and unplanned. Thirty eight [[Nobel]] prizewinners signed a 2005 statement saying that "evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection." <ref>[http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/sep/15/nobel_laureates_urge_rejection_intelligent_design/ Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design] (LJWorld.com)</ref>.
They appeared to be answering [[Roman Catholic]] Cardinal Christoph Schönborn who said that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not." <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?ex=1278388800&en=95804819e49f4832&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Finding Design in Nature], by Christoph Schönborn. </ref>

Creationists have long claimed that evolution is effectively religion<ref>[http://www.icr.org/article/201/ Evolution Is Religion, Not Science], by Henry Morris, ''Impact'', May 1982.</ref> Some evolutionists have also admitted this. [[Michael Ruse]] is an evolutionist who testified at the Arkansas trial about teaching creation alongside evolution, that evolution was not a religion. He later wrote:<ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/105/ Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion].</ref>{{QuoteBox|Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion–a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint–and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it–the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.}}

== Use of different definitions ==

When ''evolution'' is defined as "the gradual appearance of new forms of life" over geological time, then Americans are split 50-50 over whether it has really occurred.

About 45% of Americans are [[Young Earth Creationists]].

Advocates for the [[teaching of evolution]] as a finding of mainstream science tend to use two different meanings of "evolution".

*We have fossil evidence for evolution. It's a fact. (teacher in CNN article)

This apparently refers to the assertion that the appearance of new forms of life is supported by fossils (see [[radiometric dating|carbon dating]]). But the context of the quote implies that the teacher was actually talking about the notion that "new species can evolve from older ones -- such as humans evolving from ancient apes." [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/03/08/creationism.vs.evolution/]

About half of the people who reject the materialist [[Theory of Evolution]] accept the fossil evidence of "gradual appearance" while rejecting mainstream biology's explanation that a combination of [[natural selection]] and unguided forces like [[mutation]] and [[copying errors]] is the cause.

Facts are observations, theories are models which explain those observations. Theories can never be facts, because that implies that the model itself is an observation. However, theories may often become so well-accepted and well-proven that they rise to a level at which scientists are comfortable calling them "facts" - an example is the [[theory of relativity]], or the theory of [[double slit experiment|particle/wave duality]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category:Origins debate]]