Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Letter to PNAS

2008-07-25T14:12:13Z

Raggs:

: It's an excellent draft, DinsdaleP. I made a few minor revisions above. After others improve this, then I'll plan on sending it to PNAS later this week. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}
::I like it. I'll sign my name to it when the time comes.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:35, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

Thanks for the feedback - When applying changes, please keep in mind that the "Text" section in the final version needs to be 250 words or less. If there are important points to add that would exceed this limit, they could be added to the main [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]] article instead since PNAS is being asked to respond to the full list there, and not just the summary. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:47, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I think if i would have presented some draft of that quality to my supervisor i think i would not have reached the door of his office alive and in one piece. It starts with the fact that the correct citation of the article is missing. Please use the appropriate form, inclucing journal number and page. Please have a look at other PNAS Letters. Restate the central issue you criticise in the first sentence, then explicitely describe what your claim about the same issue is and state using what method you come to your conclusion. Keep a neutral tone. Don't make requests. It is obvious that the original author should respond (please look at PNAS for examples of responses, which are published at the same location). Plese fill in your numbers and precise arguments at the points where i left the dots in the following suggestion ('''Please note that nothing of this is my opinion, i just tried to rephrase your opinions in a way that they have the chance to be exposed to a broader view - i skipped tyhe details, because i will not rephrase your arguments, just the structure'''):
: Recently ...... inferred from their experiments (1) that ...... . We analyzed the statistical analysis in terms of ..... and conclude that several variables do not scale as .... . Using hypothesis tests under such circumstances is, in our opinion, ...... , and we do not understand how the authors of the original publication ..... their results.
: The replay experiments yield an ..... scaling with .... . We do not find a consistent value of ..... between the experiments. Furthermore the statistical deviation due to ...... in each sample set does not allow to infer ..... with a sufficient precision. This lack of scaling makes, in our opionion a constant or random source of contamination a likely explanation for a random observation of the ...... dependence of the mutation rate claimed in the paper. The following calculation supports this hypothesis: ....... .
: Furthermore we point out that Fig. ... contains a serious disagreement with .....: while the data would suggest ..... from gen. ..... the figure suggests .....
: We find the material cited in the original article (2)...(n) about the same long-time experiment not to describe the following procedures and experimental constants in a way accessible to us: Handling of ..., contamination rates of ...., and ..... We would kindly ask the authors to clarify these issues. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 12:48, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::No offense taken. I have no experience in these types of submissions, and would appreciate it if you could restructure the submission improve the quality while adhering to the 250-word limit. As I suggested above, it makes the most sense to incorporate these revisions into the main page for this article, where length is not an issue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:52, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I realized that you have obviously not much experience in it; getting the right tone for a scientific publication is hard and i had to try it quite some times on conferences and i still dont get it right sometimes - and from what you said seem to be a student. Sadly, it is against my conviction to rephrase the original arguments in the right way because it would make me an co-author of argumentations i strongly object. In case you did not realize it, helping here to get the structure right doesn't mean i agree - actually the two reasons i would like to see it published is because then the (wrong) idea that scientific journals are not accepting criticism could be obviously be put aside and because i would like to see the needed scientific rigorousity applied to the arguments presented here, because this would put this discussion onto a scientific basis. Quite frankly - i am a liberal by the standards of this site. But i believe the discussion must be carried out with all respect to define the borders of science. The more effective the discussion is carried out, the better the outcome will be. I am willing to listen, as i have proven here, even when beeing treated by people like Mr. Schlafly as if I would be one of his students, while evaluating his qualification in natural sciences quickly shows that i more likely could supervise him in the issues he discusses here (which is something he has proven all along). Regarding that, i am close to giving up, but nevertheless i have seen that a lot of conservatives actually are willing to lead this discussion in a scientific way, which is something, which fulfills me with hope. I recommend you not to fight a fight in where you don't understand the arguments. Don't pick up arguments from others. If you can not fill in the missing words, numbers and arguments in my text, i cant help you. I see what Mr. Schlafly believes, however i do not know how to get the calculation right to support his hypothesis (random or contant mutation rate) - and, this is most likely not because of a lack of statistical knowledge. The only way i would see is to use the rudest form of descriptive statistics and agreggate the data in a very specific way, while ignoring the structure of the experiment - and ignoring the fact that the authors pointed out the problem they see and adressed them. So i can only give oy a few hints (maybe i can form a short contibution to conservapedia; i am just thinking about the title):

:::: If you claim something is wrong, put your opposing claim in a positive formulation, with a supporting calculation, in contrast . Even if the calculation is simple, this is very important to provide it. E.g. we estimate a rate of x+-y per z for dataset N, in which we aggregated generations a,b,c,d, etc .... In the end, you should either prove a mathematical mistake (which was not done) or shoe you hypothesis is more likely.

:::: Don't be rude. You are not the referee and you are not member of a commitee to examine scientific misbehaviour. Dont act like one (and even referees have a friendlier tone usually). Dont act like an personal enemy either. Don't ask for retraction of the article. It is up to the author to make the conclusion respond or retract. This happens more often than you may think as a response to an critisism (actually it's fun to read the "reply section" of scientific journals - sometimes you find things like: "yes, the commenter was right we copied the paper and retract it"). And you are never requesting, but you are kindly asking. Everybody understands that "kindly asking" does not mean "kindly asking" in this context.

:::: Always give full and specific citations which back your claims. Give it in the form required by the specific journal. General citations like "materials on his website" will make your text bein trown out in the editorial screening (because you can not expect that somebody read trough all information to find something backing you claim - this is your job). See for specific styles [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Citation_style]]. Ypu may even reference a page/paragraph/eq/figure number to point the reader to what you mean (for papers longer than 4 pages i usually do that).

:::: Run a style checker over your text to eliminate common style mishaps.

:::: '''Most important''': go to your university library. Take the time to just read a few PNAS Letters and replys, and the original articles (Try to finde some with an easy understandable subject). Understanding how these are written and how authors usually reply will help you to get your one right. You are writing against somebody who has twenty years of experience in a field of publishing in natural sciences. You seem to have little experience and Andrew Schlafly, honestly, neither. This game is an uphill battle and unfair game anyway. Make sure you maximize your chances by understanding the rules of the game.

:::: Focus on a single you are sure about. It is better to present one claim well that two claims badly.

:::: Good luck. You will need it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 14:22, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: "Stitch75", you seem to think that the truth depends on whether PNAS accepts it. It doesn't. Lenski's paper is badly flawed regardless of whether he admits it, PNAS admits it, or you admit it. That's the beauty of the truth: it doesn't require admission by anyone. I'm fine with Lenski and PNAS refusing to admit the flaws in their paper. After all, if they really cared about quality then I doubt they would have published their flawed paper after merely 14 days or less of peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:38, 22 July 2008 (EDT)
I tend to agree with you Andy. I say we get this thing sent to PNAS and see what happens. If they refuse to answer it then we know what that means, and if they thumb their noses at you that's fine too. However I have a little more faith than you in the system and I hold out hope that they'll respond to our queries. Anyway lets get this thing sent. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 15:50, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I'd like to thank Stitch75, because he took the time to explain his points constructively, and I learned something from them. (I'm actually an IT Specialist in my 40's, not a full-time student, but learning is a never-ending process and I appreciated the lesson). I consider myself bound by the same ethical constraints on editing that he mentioned, because these objections to Lenski's work are Mr. Schlafly's, not my own. I tend to believe that the Lenski experiment was properly executed, but I'm a strong believer in the scientific process, and Mr. Schlafly's objections deserve a fair hearing whether one believes in them or not. My contribution is to help in the process of getting these objections to the proper forum, namely PNAS, and leaving the response up to them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:20, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Stich has given you brilliant advice, and you throw it away. He has told you that your letter will not get published, and it will have nothing to do with it's content. And when it doesn't get published you will claim it as a victory. If you take his advice and continue to take it, you will make it so no one can simply claim your letter wasn't accepted because it didn't match the criteria set out for letters to PNAS. Now if you have a well written and correctly laid out letter, and then it isn't published, at least you have a leg to stand on.

As a lawyer I would have expected you to understand that certain documents need to be written in set styles, and obey certain rules. Have you published anything (this isn't meant to be derogatory, it's a geniune request), I am positive you must have done so. When you did your citations would have had to be correctly arranged, and many other rules obeyed. Law suits are written up in a set style, and no one would dream of simply scribbling a note and saying check out this website, and expect to be taken seriously. So why do you expect a scientific journal to accept whatever you send them? Follow the procedures, then you have a right to complain if nothing happens. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:12, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==How about this one==

I'm not going to say I know much about the science but I made this suggestion a few days ago (in the article page). It is certainly a lot shorter, and I think a little more polite. What do you think Andy

Europe

2008-05-14T18:01:38Z

Raggs: If we're talking about major empires stemming from Europe, I figure the British one should be included.

[[Image:Europe pol 2004.jpg|thumb|300 px|Political map of Europe]]
[[Image:Europe ref04.jpg|thumb|300 px|Shaded relief map of Europe]]
'''Europe''' is the western part of the [[continent]]al landmass of Eurasia, consisting of the general area between the [[Ural Mountains]] and the [[Atlantic Ocean]]. With an area of 3,998,000 square miles it ranks as the second-smallest of the continents, but in terms of population (727,000,000 in 2007) it is the third-largest.

Long a center of culture, art, philosophy, and government, Europe was the birthplace of democracy; the art and architecture of the Renaissance; the springboard of the great age of exploration; and the beginnings of the industrial age. Several major empires inhabited the continent: Greece, Rome, Byzantium, the Ottomans, the Holy Roman, the French, the German, and the British each producing great achievements for posterity, as well as sparking wars and conflicts which exist to this day.

==Land==
Europe is considered to begin at the Ural Mountains, a chain running north-south in present-day Russia. The Caucasus, another mountain chain between the Black and Caspian Seas, forms the southern land boundary. Its remaining boundaries are coastlines; the Arctic Ocean, the North and Norwegian Seas, the Atlantic Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea. The northernmost point on the mainland is Cape Nordkinn, Norway; the southernmost in Spain at Punta de Tarifa.

===Topography===
===Climate===
Cool winters and mild summers are typical of the climate in northern Europe, the result of the warm currents brought by the Atlantic Ocean as well as prevailing westerly winds. The climate of southern Europe is Mediterranean, usually hot in summer, with most rainfall taking place in winter. A colder climate begins in central Poland eastward, typified by drier conditions and, especially in Russia, severely-cold winters.

===Drainage===
The major rivers in western Europe originate in the mountain ranges of central Europe. The Rhine, Rhone, Elbe, Seine and Vistula flow from the Alps and the Balkans northward, emptying into the English Channel, North and Baltic seas; the Po and Rubicon rivers flow into the Mediterranean Sea, while the [[Danube]] flows into the Black Sea. Long a navigable river, the [[Danube]] is further connected via locks and canals to the Rhine, ensuring a centuries-long free flow of commerce from both sides of Europe into the interior. In eastern Europe the major rivers flow towards the south, emptying in the Black and Caspian seas; among them are the Dnepr, Donets, and Volga. With the exception of the Mediterranean rivers, all European rivers have an even rate of flow as a result of an even spread of yearly precipitation; the faster-flowing rivers, particularly in the mountain highlands and Scandinavia, also aid in the production of hydroelectric power for home and industry.

===Flora===
Forests covered a large part of Europe as late as the 19th century, but human activities have cleared a many areas for farming. Still, a large amount of forested land remains, as well as those acres that have been re-planted or re-grown after human abandonment.

A mixed coniferous-deciduous belt dominates a vegetation zone across the central portion of the continent from east to west, characterized by oak, elm and maple mingled with fir and pine. Spruce and pine dominate inland northern Europe as a result of cool, but mild temperatures. Tundra is characteristic of the Arctic land regions, consisting of shrubs, wild flowers, lichens and mosses. To the east is the European Plain, an expanse of prairie grass which gives way to the Ukrainian steppe and its short grasses of a drier climate.

===Fauna===
The lakes and rivers support an abundance of fish, including trout and salmon, while the coastal areas and inland seas support tuna, sardines, sturgeon, cod, haddock, halibut, and many others. Birds are widespread as well, including eagles, storks, ravens, and seabirds.

Although there are many mammal species on the continent (deer, lemmings, beaver, etc), they have been hard hit as a result of man's long occupation in Europe. The once common brown bear (''Ursus arctos'') is now restricted to isolated pockets of the Pyrenees and the far north of Scandinavia. The wisent (''Bison bonasus''), the largest mammal on the continent, has been over-hunted so extensively that only a few managed herds survive in central Poland, while a relative, the larger aurochs (''Bos primigenius'') was killed off by 1627.

===Mineral resources===
Coal is found extensively in Britain, Spain, France, the Ruhr of Germany, Belgium, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and the Ukraine. Oil and natural gas deposits lie throughout Europe, with the two most important regions within Russia and the North Sea. Nickel, tin, bauxite, copper, lead, gypsum, manganese, lead, and iron ore have been mined extensively and traded. Marble, such as that from Carrera, Italy, is used in monumental architecture and statuary.

===Arable land===
==People==
It is conjectured that the first humans migrated into Europe in several waves, either from Asia Minor across the Bosporus and into the Balkan region, or from Asia by way of the steppes. River barriers, mountains, and forested lands help to divide early Europeans into distinct groups, and by about 4000 B.C. humans were well-established.

===Ethnic groups===
A large number of diverse ethnic groups live on the continent, associated by common culture and language. Several of the European nations are composed of one predominant ethnic group, i.e. Greeks in Greece, Spanish in Spain. Several of these countries have a distinctive minority, such as the Laplanders of northern Norway and Finland.

===Languages===
The vast majority of the languages spoken on the European continent come from the [[Indo-European]] language family. Within this category, the three largest European branches are the [[Romance]] (Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian); [[Germanic]] (German, English, Danish, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic); and [[Slavic]] (Russian, Bulgarian, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovenian, Macedonian, Serbo-Croatian). Other languages include Celtic (Irish, Scottish Gaelic, Welsh, Breton), Baltic (Latvian, Lithuanian), Greek and Albanian, as well as languages within the Finno-Ugric group (Hungarian, Finnish, Estonian). Turkish is spoken in the European portion of Turkey.

Several of the European languages were spread world-wide over the past five hundred years as a result of trade, colonization, or political/military power; as a result, French, English, Spanish, and German are second languages for many people.

===Religion===
The dominant religion in Europe is Christianity, with the Roman Catholic Church the largest single sect, forming a major part of the lives of people in France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Ireland. The Protestants are several churches which originally broke away from the Catholic Church beginning in the 16th century, the first being the Lutheran Church. Members of Protestant denominations form the majority in Germany, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. The third major Christian group is Eastern Orthodoxy, mainly in eastern Europe, of which the Greek and Russian sects are well known.

Europe is now the least Christian and the most secularized and socialized part of the world.<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/05/02/europe-the-dark-continent/ Europe: The Dark Continent]</ref>

In addition to Turkey, Islam has established itself as the dominant religion in the Balkan countries of Albania and Kosovo.

===Culture and Education===
The arts has a long period of tradition in Europe, which produced many outstanding works in painting, sculpture, architecture, dance, music, and literature; among the great masters are Leonardo Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, Raphael, Vincent Van Gogh, Mozart, Brahms, Alexander Dumas, Charles Dickens, and many others. Paris, Vienna, London, Rome, Madrid, Florence, and other European capitals became havens where art flourished and expanded. Institutions of learning also grew, with several, such as Oxford and Cambridge, becoming well-known world-wide.

===Health===
===Demography===
Migration and differential birth and death rates have resulted in a shifting in population distribution over periods of time. By 400 A.D. the bulk of the population was along the Mediterranean coastline; today the interior and north-central Europe has the majority of population density. The average life expectancy for Europeans is 75 years, despite a population decrease attributed to a low birth rate of 10.2 births per 1,000 people (2005)

==Economy and Commerce==
===Industry===
The Industrial Revolution began in Europe during the late 18th century, and since then Europe has become a leading exporter of manufactured goods. Textiles and clothing, ships, motor vehicles, aircraft, railroads, are among the items produced, and since World War II high-technology and electronic items were added. Manufacturing is particularly concentrated in the United Kingdom, central Europe, and in European Russia and Ukraine.

===Agriculture===
European farmers produce a mixed variety of crops yearly, with wheat producing the largest yield, especially within the Ukraine. Other crops include barley, oats, rye, corn, potatoes, beets, beans, peas, and sugar beets. Southern Europe is noted for the production of grapes for the wine industry, olives, pistachio nuts, and citrus fruits; the first two (grapes and olives) have become important to the identity as well as the economy of the countries which produce them. Animal production includes beef (especially in Spain), pigs, goats, and poultry.

===Forestry===
The main sources of wood for construction and other products come from the northern European forests of Scandinavia, Finland, and Russia; southern Europe, with less forested acreage, is known primarily as a producer of cork.

===Fishing===
Fishing is very important to northern European countries; access to the cold waters of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans enable a large harvest of cod, char, herring and flatfish yearly. All coastal countries engage in commercial fishing to some degree, and two, Italy and Greece, have fishing traditions which date to ancient times.

===Transportation===
The first means of transportation were by water; the Vikings have traded extensively via the waterways and river systems of northern Europe, while in the south the Danube and Mediterranean was used. Today, large fleets of ships are maintained by several countries which import and export a great deal of goods, and have transformed many coastal cities into major sea ports.

Highways and roads are well-established and maintained; Germany's famous Autobahns providing the example, and in addition to trade via trucks a large number of Europeans own automobiles. Railways carrying passengers and freight crisscross the continent; France's TGV is among the fastest trains in the world, and the "Orient Express", made famous by an Agatha Christy novel, still makes its fabled run from Paris to Istanbul.

All European countries have a national airline (KLM, Lufthansa, British Airways, etc) that maintain routes world-wide. In addition, the Airbus Corporation competes with Boeing in the manufacture of large-bodied passenger aircraft.

===Trade===
International and intercontinental trade on a large scale is conducted by nearly all European countries, with the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom among the largest trading nations in the world.

== History ==

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Continents]]

Talk:Evolutionism

2008-04-30T21:31:19Z

Raggs:

[[Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1]]

== Code tags ==

I've been wondering for a long time, is there any particular reason this artice uses <nowiki><code></nowiki> tags to produce monospaced text? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

== 'Weak Atheism' ==

Philip, you are obviously not familiar with 'Weak Atheism'. Unlike 'Strong Atheism', which makes a positive statement about the non-existence of God, regardless of the evidence, this states that there is probably no God as there is no objective proof of God. The 'world view' is dependant on the evidence, or lack of evidence, as is the science, so I fail to see how, in this case, the 'science is based on the world view', as you altered it to say. You appear to believe that the only difference between 'Strong Atheism' and 'Weak Atheism' is the strength of the assertion that there is no God, whether this fits in with the evidence or not. This is not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 11:58, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:The article already said "Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God". Now, they may not hold the no-god view ''strongly'', but if the science is done on the basis of there being no God, then it is being done on the basis of naturalism, just as for strong atheism, which means that the worldview is the basis for the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 19 April 2008 (EDT)

::And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God. Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures. If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
::: If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is nonsense. All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, ...

::::::Because all evidence, observation and experimentation to date suggests they are. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: That they are constant started as an assumption, and although observations are consistent with that, it is not provable, and it remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments ... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Because of a distinct lack of evidence that we can't. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: A ''lack'' of evidence is not evidence, and if our senses were playing tricks on us, how could we tell? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...and so forth. Your second sentence is wrong. You don't have to accept that God exists ''before'' you are able to conclude that God was responsible. All you have to accept is the ''possibility'' that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that ''possibility''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::In the complete absence of evidence of this, yes there is, unless you present it as a pure conjecture (in colloquial terms, that would be 'a wild-ass guess'). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, there is ''not''. You are ruling out a ''possibility'' because you believe that there is no evidence. That is putting the cart before the horse. It's like saying that there is no evidence that people lived in England prior to (say) 1000 AD (I'm being hypothetical), so therefore you can't propose that [[Stonehenge]] was built by people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It is rejection of that ''possibility'' that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::I've kinda said this as simply as I am able, using proper English,but you still don't seem to be getting it, so I'll try putting it even simpler. Evidence = scientific. No evidence = not scientific. 'Weak atheism' = no evidence of God, so no God. Get it now? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I don't "get it". Your "no evidence of God, so no God" is like saying "No evidence = not scientific = doesn't exist". But just because there's no evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Get it? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong: you don't have to accept that God exists ''beforehand''. If the ''evidence'' points to God, why not accept that conclusion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::If the evidence pointed to God existing, you'd have a point. Your problem is that this is simply not the case. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: The evidence ''does'' point to God existing. Your problem is that you have been indoctrinated into the idea that God doesn't exist so you are unaware of the evidence that He does. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century). I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries. The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes. The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::So the Church formally ordered Galileo not to hold or defend the notion of heliocentrism due to 'personailty clashes'? The Catholic Inquisition put Galileo on trial for heresy, during which the idea that the Sun was at the center of the solar system was condemned as 'formally heretical', due to 'personality clashes'? At the end of that trial, his book, 'Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems', was banned, and any and all works by him, including any as yet unwritten, were also banned, due to 'personality clashes'? A general prohibition against the publication of ANY book advocating heliocentrism went into the Index Librorum Prohibitorum due to 'personality clashes'? He remained under house arrest for the rest of his life due to 'personality clashes'? Well, all I can say is that they must have taken 'personality clashes' FAR more seriously back then than they do now. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I said "''things like'' personality clashes". It was a very general, overly-simplified, reference. But apart from that, then the answers to your question are basically all "yes". See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here] for a detailed description. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Despite your opinions, the ''documented facts'' of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Nope, that's what your interpretation of the ''documented facts'' are. Same as what I put above for the reasons for the beginning of modern science are my interpretation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Your interpretation of ''what''? No, it's not my "interpretation". I provided a link above with more information. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::But they have made experiments and observations that prove that they are constant in every situation that exists naturally, or has been able to be manufactured, to date, here on Earth, and there is no evidence whatsoever that anywhere else is sufficiently different that the laws of physics would be, for some reason, invalid. Plus, of course, one of the laws of physics actually indicates that nothing that actually has any mass can go faster than the speed of light. This means it would take at least several billion years to do as you suggest. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, a lack of evidence is not evidence. True, it would take an awful long time to check: that only serves to show that it must remain an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Actually, it doesn't. It is generally believed by physicists (though this is really a hypothesis, at the moment), that, at the beginning of the universe, the Big Bang, all physical laws and rules basically didn't apply. Indeed, it is commonly stated that the question, 'what came before the Big Bang?' is nonsensical, because, in the Big Bang, time, basically, did not exist (though there are a couple of hypotheses that actually challenge that). [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Actually, the exception you cite doesn't disprove my assertion. If you want me to be more precise, science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time since a few microseconds after the hypothesised Big Bang. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::...scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Mainly because the laws of physics indicate this is impossible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Again, this only serves to show why it must remain an ''assumption''. I wasn't criticising them for not checking; I was pointing out that it can't be checked, and therefore remains an assumption. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::It also ''assumes'' that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply ''today'' to calculate required strengths and stresses and ''assume'' that they will continue to apply tomorrow. Clearly that is ''not'' "observation". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::No, it is logical extrapolation from observed evidence. For example, from repeatedly observing that the force of Earth's gravity does not radically change from one day to the next, we know that it is incredibly unlikely that we are going to wake up tomorrow and find gravity has trebled, so we need to build that bridge three times as strong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: An extrapolation ''is'' an ''assumption'', or based on one. That is, we consider it safe to extrapolate ''because'' we have this ''assumption''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'. 'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God. It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: 'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ''ignore'' or ''are unfamiliar with'' or ''reject'' the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Really? I trust you will make the most important event in the history of the world happen, then, by conclusively and objectively proving that God actually exists? Bear in mind, of course, that any evidence that is dependant on the notion that God actually exists would be circular reasoning. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:15, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Much of your argument in your latest post has been that believing in the constancy of the laws of physics is ''reasonable'', not that it's been ''proved''. Yet now you switch standards to demand ''proof'' (for God), and for good measure throw in a demand that I don't use what is actually a typical atheistic straw-man argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I believe you are making a common mistake in arguments of this sort. Please find above where Philip said there was a proof for God... Evidence and proof are not interchangeable words. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:48, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, if there isn't clear, undeniable proof of God, that kinda destroys his whole argument that it is basically impossible for a 'weak atheist' to be an atheist due to the evidence (or, rather, lack of it), rather than an underlying world view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 19:33, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: No, it doesn't destroy my argument at all. See also the parts about proof and evidence at [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::And, to address this specifically, yes, it does. The only way you can definitively say that a 'weak atheist' cannot possibly be an atheist due to the evidence is if the evidence is so overwhelming in favour of there being a God that no-one could possibly fail to be persuaded by it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:24, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::I didn't say that an atheist cannot be an atheist because of the evidence. I said that it didn't destroy my argument, but that was not my argument. My argument was that science done on the basis of there being no god was putting ideology ahead of the evidence. Why can't, for example, atheists do their science on the basis that there ''might be'' (not "is") a God? Presumably, because they are ''atheists''! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::No, doing science that way follows the most basic of basic of scientific principles - that being that you do work based on evidence. I also refer you to my comments below. Why can't scientists do work on the basis that there ''might be'' an invisible pink unicorn? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: No, true science will not rule out a possible explanation ''a priori''. Good question: why ''can't'' scientists work on the basis that there might be an invisible pink unicorn? That is, why rule out a possible explanation in advance? If the evidence is consistent with there being an invisible pink unicorn, why should scientists say "no, we can't accept that answer, even if it's true"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::::Simple - with enough imagination (and that's not much), people can make up, on the spot, patently absurd possibilities that are impossible to disprove. Look up Flying Spaghetti Monster for a classic example - it is a completely made-up 'religion' that, according to your argument, is a solid bit of science, as no-one has yet conclusively disproven it. Similarly, the invisible pink unicorn is a solid bit of science, as is the idea that the universe was created by being sneezed out of the nostril of the Great Snozuflu. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

(Unindent) So, to summarise what appears to be your entire argument, what you are basically saying is that you are free to propose anything you like, and, if people cannot definitively prove you wrong, that is a solid scientific theory. OK, I'll do this myself. The universe was created by an invisible pink unicorn which cannot be seen or detected by any known method. Prove me wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:22, 22 April 2008 (EDT)
: No that is not my argument at all. Reread the part of [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] about "proving God". It doesn't directly explain where you are wrong, but should give you some idea. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 22 April 2008 (EDT)

::Sorry, so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist (in much the same way as there is no absolute proof that the invisible pink unicorn does not exist), and you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific. Indeed, that is how this whole discussion started - you making an edit to the effect that failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science. Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is, you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'. Well, that may or may not be true, but, if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, even if the reason is that it is impossible to scientifically test it, that is still unscientific. Unless, of course, you're referring to the rest of that section of your essay, in which case you appear to be saying, more or less, 'because the 'evidence' is enough to convince some people of the existence of God, regardless of whether that evidence is solid, objective or anything else, it is unscientific to base anything on the idea God does not exist.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 00:25, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::: "''... so far, you have argued on the basis that there is no absolute proof that God does not exist...''": I don't think I've put my argument in quite that way, but I'll grant that this would be inferred from what I've said as ''one'' of my points, but not the key or only point of my argument.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, sorry, I 'infer' that from pretty much everything you have said above, so, if that is not the 'key or only point of your argument', you need to learn to express yourself better. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Perhaps. Or perhaps you need to read it better, or with a more open mind? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...you are using that to try to say that to do science on the basis of there being no God is unscientific.''": Again, that could be ''inferred'', but my point really was that one shouldn't rule out a possible explanation in ''a priori''.
::: "''...failing to reinterpret evidence to account for the existence of God due to a lack of evidence for God existing is down to a 'world view', not science.''": No, ruling out a possible explanation ''a priori'' is down to a worldview, not science.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Actually, that's not quite correct - you use the evidence to, in effect, 'rule in' possibilities. You start from the basis of nothing at all. Starting from the idea that God exists is not doing that. Starting from nothing means that you have to see solid evidence of the existence of God before you accept that. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I'm not suggesting starting from the basis that God exists. I'm suggesting starting from the basis that God ''might'' exist, rather than ''exclude'' that possibility ''a priori''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::So you ''a priori'' rule in the possibility of God existing BEFORE looking at the evidence. THAT is doing science based on a 'world view'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, that is proper science. Science doesn't (shouldn't) limit possible answers by having to "rule in" certain answers first. When an explanation for something is required, scientists don't have to consult a list of "ruled in" explanations to see what they are allowed to consider as possible explanations. And neither should they have to consult a list of "ruled out" explanations. They should be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You've got it almost right in your last sentence - they should, indeed, be free to consider any explanation that fits the observations, but they base those possible explanations on those observations. To 'rule in' any explanation before examining the evidence is filtering science through a 'world view'. Otherwise we have the situation of the invisible pink unicorn, Flying Spaghetti Monster and Great Snozuflu being solid science, as there is nothing conclusively proving them wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: What do you think "rule in" means? To me it simply means not "ruling out". Atheists ''rule out'' God as a possible explanation before considering the evidence: that's not science. And you are making an almighty leap to suggest that ''allowing for the possibility of'' the invisible pink unicorn, etc. amounts to them being "solid science". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::If you 'rule out' something, this means it was 'on the table', so to speak, as a possibility, then something made you reject it as a possibility. If something is 'ruled in', it means it was not 'on the table', but something made you start to consider it as a possibility. In science, as I have said, you start with nothing 'on the table' and use evidence to rule possibilities in. As for comment about the invisible pink unicorn, if you're not considering it as solid science, why would you base absolutely anything on that idea, then? This lesson is told in the Bible, so you should know it, but is true of science as well - anything is only as solid as what it's built on. Any 'science' that is built on anything that is not solid science is itself not solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''Now that I point out how absurd that argument actually is...''": Given that that wasn't my argument, you've only demolished a straw-man.[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Then it's a 'straw man' you constructed yourself. What is your actual argument, then, given that everything you have stated above seems to be concerned with the idea that there is no absolute proof of the non-existence of God? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I've explained my argument numerous times by now: that if you ''a priori'' rule out considering the possibility of God being involved, then you are putting ideology ahead of the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::And the reason you believe that is, apparantly, discounting the possibility that God exists due to a lack of evidence is down to a 'world view', not science. Unfortunately, you haven't explained your reasoning as to how you came to the conclusion that following the evidence is not scientific, considering that examining the evidence is the whole basis of scientific enquiry. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Following the evidence ''is'' scientific. And if the evidence ''points to an intelligent creator'', scientists should be free to consider that explanation. Ruling that explanation out ''a priori'' is imposing ideology on the science. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...you now seem to be changing the argument to 'scientifically testing the existence of God is impossible, even if He does exist'''": No, I've ''acknowledged that'' all along (that is in [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]), but I'm not "changing the argument".[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Ah, right, so I'm supposed to have read all your essays, and rely on them rather than what you say here if the two seem to be advancing different arguments. Sorry about that(!) Of course, the other point is that if, as you say, it is utterly impossible to scientifically test if God exists or not, I fail to see how you can argue that it is scientific to base anything on the idea that God exists. Yes, you can have a religious faith this is so, and you can say that this might be so from a philiosophical point of view, but you simply cannot say this from a scientific point of view. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: I said nothing about reading all my essays. Perhaps this is an example of you not reading me properly? I referred to a specific essay that I have linked to before in this discussion (i.e. one that you would have already read) and merely did so to support my point that I've long acknowledged that God's existence cannot be ''scientifically'' tested.

::::::But you were originally arguing that it is unscientific to follow the evidence, basically. You did not actually reference that essay until well into this discussion. Does this mean I should have already read this essay, so that I knew what you were apparantly arguing wasn't what you were REALLY arguing? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: I have never said that following the evidence is unscientific. On the contrary, I believe that science means following the evidence, even if that leads to God being the explanation. Which you can't do if you've already ruled God out. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: And despite putting this in the article and saying it here several times, you still don't get it. Science hasn't 'ruled out' God, and neither has 'weak atheism'. It has, basically, failed to 'rule in' God as there is no solid objective evidence of God. I should also point out that, if you now admit that following the evidence is scientific, then the edit you made to the article, which started this whole discussion off, is wrong - 'weak atheism' follows the evidence, as does science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: You say that "Science hasn't 'ruled out' God", yet according to your version of the article, "science is done on the basis of there being no God". ''That'' is "ruling out" God. Yes you do qualify it by saying "unless His existence becomes objectively proven", but all that says is that ''if'' at some future time, God's existence is proven, ''then'' you can consider Him a possible explanation. (Which is tantamount to saying, if weak atheism ceases to be atheistic...!). Until then, however, He is ''ruled out'' as a possible explanation. "Weak atheism", if it does science on the basis of there being no God, is ''not'' following the evidence. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly. So, according to your argument, it is scientific to totally disregard the evidence and base your conclusions on imagination. This only confirms to me that you do not have the slightest clue about even the basics of scientific practice. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: How do you ''scientifically test'' that there were people in England capable of building Stonehenge at the time that it was supposed to be built? You can't. But does that therefore mean that you can't propose such people as builders of the monument? Of course not. But you would argue (if you are being consistent with your arguments about God) that you can't propose that people built Stonehenge because you can't scientifically prove the existence of such people! Instead, you are forced to conclude that Stonehenge is a natural phenomenon, presumably carved by the wind and rain over thousands of years! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, where this argument falls to pieces is that there is pretty damn clear-cut evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time. If you were saying hypothetically what if there was no evidence of man in Britain, then yes, you would be correct - we couldn't scientifically test it. However, from the evidence we actually have, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, neither would Stonehenge. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, I was being hypothetical, as I said. And yes, if man didn't exist in Britain at the time, then neither would Stonehenge. But that's putting things back to front. If you ''didn't know'' that men existed in Britain at the time, but you ''did know'' that Stonehenge exists, would you (a) conclude that men must have existed at the time, or (b) ruled out that men could have made Stonehenge because you don't have evidence that men existed in Britain at the time? Your methodology in regard to God is the latter: you are saying that God couldn't have made the world because you don't have evidence that God exists. Instead, you could, like choice (a), conclude that the evidence leads you to conclude that God does exist, because that's a more reasonable explanation than saying that the universe popped into existence from nothing for no reason. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Sorry, in absence of solid evidence, to follow scientific practice, I would have to conclude (b), in your hypothetical situation, which would leave the question of 'who built Stonehenge?' unsanswered. I could maybe propose (a) as an unproven hypothesis, or even a pure conjecture, but it would face major problems to be overcome before it could even remotely be called a 'theory'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: It's just as well you're not a scientists then (or at least I hope you're not), if you are willing to ignore the evidence that there must have been men in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built (the evidence being Stonehenge itself) simply because there's no ''independent'' evidence that men were in Britain at the time. This debate has gone on long enough, and I'm restoring the article, because you have argued yourself into a corner. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::If the only evidence of the existence of man in Britain at the time Stonehenge was built was the simple fact that Stonehenge existed, you can, at best, state that man built Stonehenge as an unproven hypothesis. In the case of direct experimentation to test the hypothesis being impossible, a hypothesis becomes a solid scientific theory through independant evidence conforming to that hypothesis. Again, this is basic scientific practice. The fact you don't know this is more evidence, quite frankly, of your ignorance of science. As for 'arguing myself into a corner', sorry, from my point of view, it is you who have argued yourself into one - by your argument, the only way that you can revert that article and actually think it's accurate is if you genuinely think the invisible pink unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu and the idea that we were created by Zmopugvf of the plant Xijtfbvj (just to make another one up on the spot) is, in any way, solid science. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::: "''...if you try to do science on the basis of something that is not proven, ... that is still unscientific''": Not at all. You seem to be saying that the solutions have to be proved before they can be proposed. Science is about ''proposing'' solutions then trying to determine if they are correct. Sometimes you are unable to prove them one way or the other, which means that (in a scientific sense) the solution remains tentative. But you don't rule out a solution/explanation ''a priori'' on the basis that the solution/explanation hasn't (yet) been proved.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::You almost got that correct. Science is about proposing solutions based on evidence, then trying to determine if they are correct. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 09:35, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: Yes, but you don't rule out potential explanations ''a priori'' just because those explanations have not been "scientifically proved". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::You missed the part about proposing solutions based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 13:58, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: No, I didn't miss it at all. I agree with that part, which is why I said "yes". I've also now expanded on that above. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Well, if you're considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence you are NOT proposing solutions based on evidence. You are proposing solutions based on imagination. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 08:58, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Having read this whole fascinating correspondence I have to say that Urushnor is correct. The point "Weak Atheism" makes is that there is no evidence that God exists. It goes on to suggest that - given this - we have no obligation, need, or reason to to believe in Him.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:11, 26 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::: I'm ''not'' considering possible explanations before looking at the evidence! I'm considering possible explanations ''for'' the evidence, without rejecting any because they have not been independently ''proven''.

:::::::::::For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet. You look at the evidence first. Once you do that, you come up with explanations based on that evidence, then, essentially, try to disprove them by experimentation, if possible. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Furthermore (and this is answering both of you), it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is no evidence for God's existence. The very fact that we exist is evidence!
:::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 15:59, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

=== A fresh start ===

Okay, let's try it this way.

:'''Example 1'''
Archaeologists find a Stonehenge-like structure in a part of the world and dated to a time where there has previously been no evidence of people having lived. Here is how three different groups would consider different options.

{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| The formation was formed by nature
| colspan=3| Reject: Nature does not arrange rocks in concentric circles and stacked on each other in this manner.
|-
| The formation was created by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: The rocks are too large for most animals to handle, and animals don't arrange rocks like that.
|-
| The formation was created by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject: According to Occam's Razor, the next option is preferred.
|-
| The formation was created by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Agreed. This is within the capabilities of humans and is the sort of thing they might do.
|-
| The formation was created by God
| Reject: No evidence of and no motive for creation by God
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}

Do any of the groups of scientists hold the last option with absolute certainty? No, nothing in science is considered certain. But there would be no real doubt about it. In fact, the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Remember, science cannot actually ''prove'' anything, so saying that "no-one would be able to prove this hypothesis scientifically" is axiomatic.

:In your hypothetical situation, we have one bit of evidence only - the simple fact Stonehenge exists. NO hypothesis can be confirmed when there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'. You don't know what weak atheism would say, nor strong atheism because we aren't in that situation. You assert that they would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'. I would also say that there would, in fact, be a likelihood that some Christians would actually view the fact of Stonehenge's existence as further proof of God, as who else would be able to make it pop into existence like that, with zero evidence being left behind of anyone else building it, or even living in the same landmass as it? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Your reply ignores the reality, which I mentioned, that the presence of humans in a particular time/place has often been determined on evidence flimsier than this. Scientists would ''not'' say "we don't know". This would be taken as quite sufficient evidence. There's no evidence of it "popping into existence", so no, Christians would not see it as proof of God.

:::Nope, sorry, there are quite a few Christians who believe certain things that there is actually fairly solid evidence AGAINST, so a simple lack of evidence in support is not a problem for them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Rather than a hypothetical example, I'll give you a real example. Stone artifacts, determined to be spear heads, have been found in Manitoba, and these have been dated to 10,000 to 8,000 years ago (not that I accept the dates, but that's by the way). Apart from these items, there is no evidence for humans existing there at that time. So were these tools made by God, by nature, by animals, by aliens, or by humans? According to you, the only bit of evidence is "the simple fact [the spear heads] exist. NO hypothesis can be confirmed where there is only one bit of evidence. In the above situation, the correct scientific conclusion is, actually, in effect, 'insufficient data'... [I] assert that [weak atheists] would accept the idea man built it, but it is entirely possible that they would echo the scientific conclusion - 'we don't know'." Really? Well, according to the University of Manitoba web-site, it was .... humans! ("A handful of spear heads provides the only evidence of this early human presence")[http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/arts/anthropology/manarchnet/chronology/paleoindian/paleo2.html]
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::There, you're comparing apples with oranges. We know that the spearheads were created by man as we can compare them with independant evidence that very similar spearheads were created by man. In addition, we do have evidence of man in the areas surrounding the region, and there was, at the time, no barrier to man moving into that region. In your hypothetical example, Stonehenge is fairly unique and unusual (to such an extent that we still haven't actually figured out exactly what it's for) and, in your hypothetical example, the one and only piece of evidence we actually have that man was even on the same landmass was the simple fact Stonehenge existed, so there was a barrier to man simply moving into the region - it's called the sea. Now, if the simple existence of these artifacts were the one and only bit of evidence that we had of the existence of man at the time in the whole of the North American continent, and these were so strange, unusual and unknown that we simply couldn't work out what they were for, then you would be comparing apples with apples. However, that's not true. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:'''Example 2'''
Biologists find complex information-carrying structures in living things, which they name "DNA". Here is how the three different groups would consider different options.

{| class="wikitable"
| || Christian||Weak atheist||Strong atheist
|-
| DNA was formed by nature
| Reject: Inconsistent with the Bible and with scientific observation
| colspan=2| Accept: Only acceptable option
|-
| DNA was formed by animals
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates animals, so animals could not have formed it. Also, technology involved is beyond animals.
|-
| DNA was produced by aliens
| Reject: Aliens don't exist
| colspan=2| Reject (although a few might accept); the next option is preferred.
|-
| DNA was formed by an unknown group of humans
| colspan=3| Reject: DNA predates humans, so humans could not have formed it.
|-
| DNA was created by God
| Accept: Consistent with the Bible and with the evidence that information only comes from an intelligence. This is within His capability and is the sort of thing He might do.
| Can't consider: No evidence for God's existence
| Reject: God doesn't exist
|}

Notice the inconsistency there. In the first example, weak atheism was prepared to accept, even if tentatively, that humans were responsible ''even if there was no other evidence of humans''. In the second example, weak atheism is not even prepared to consider the possibility of God being involved, ''despite the exact same situation''. Actually, I'd lump weak atheism in with strong atheism, but I'm using your descriptions.

:Well, the 'inconsistency' is due to your assertions. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: But you haven't succeeded in showing that my assertions were incorrect. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::And here we are back at your whole underlying mistake - that people must prove you wrong, rather than you proving yourself correct. In science, you have to back up what you say with evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:Something else that occurred to me about your two tables. According to what you seem to think science is, then all of the various hypotheses for both scenarios are, actually, solid science, even the hypothesis of DNA on Earth being created by an unknown group of humans, as that could be people who are, basically, humans, but from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet. The only exception to this, according to your table, is the idea that DNA is formed by nature, but even that is due to your assertion that this is 'inconsistent with scientific observation', which is, basically, wrong. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:47, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Humans "from a massively more advanced civilization from a different planet"? Er, that's "aliens".

::: Not if they're the same species. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: When I refer to DNA being produced by nature, I am, of course, talking about the ''origin'' of DNA, not about DNA being produced by living things that have DNA instructions telling those living things how to produce DNA. Given that, no, the statement is not wrong at all. DNA being produced by nature ''is'' inconsistent with scientific observations. DNA contains genetic [[information]], and no known natural mechanism produces new genetic information. Even Richard Dawkins was unable to name any examples.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5712/] Rather, there are known mechanisms that ''destroy'' or ''eliminate'' information. More on that below.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::I remember hearing about that. You know something? The reason Dawkins was 'stumped' was because he was struggling to hold onto his temper. The reason this was the case case was that he had been told that he was being interviewed for a film, called Crossroads, that explores the relationship between science and religion. Being asked that question gave the game away that he was, in fact, being interviewed by creationists for a creationist piece of propoganda. This is because this question is so easy to actually answer that only creationists ask it, and the reason he stopped the interview was in sheer anger at being lied to. I gave you three examples in an article below, one of which was, arguably, actually a decrease in genetic information, even though this lead to an advantageous ability. However, for a rather more definitive answer, try Down's Syndrome. In this, not just a protein, or even a gene, is added, but an entire extra chromosome. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Ah, yes, I thought I remembered seeing a response to that, written by Dawkins himself - here it is.[http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm] [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:37, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''The science is based on the idea there is no God as there is no evidence of God, as I have stated repeatedly.''": And as I have stated repeatedly ''and substantiated'', there ''is'' evidence for God.

:Well, you have stated repeatedly there is evidence for God. If you've actually substantiated it, you did it incredibly subtly and I missed it. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Hmmm, perhaps I haven't substantiated it ''in replies to you'', although I certainly have in other discussions. For one thing, it's an established principle that everything that has a beginning has a cause, which means that the natural universe must have had a cause, and as the cause of everything that is natural cannot itself be natural, then the cause must be ''supernatural'', i.e. God. For another, information is only seen to arise from intelligent beings. DNA contains genetic information, and the only candidates for intelligent beings predating DNA are God and aliens, and the aliens would have to have something equivalent to DNA, which raises the same question for the source of ''that'' information, so eventually you are back to God being the only candidate. That's just two bits of ''evidence'' (not necessarily ''proof'') for God. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, sorry, we're back at the 'it must be God, as we're here to talk about it' argument, just one step removed. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''For what evidence? You haven't looked at any yet.''": Who says I haven't? I have evidence in the form of a Stonehenge-like structure, for example.

:Your whole point is that you're considering possibilities, then ruling out the possibilities using evidence. It is not possible to do it this way around and claim you're proposing possibilities based on evidence. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Your whole point is that, according to you, in science, you use the evidence to eliminate possibilities. If you are only using the evidence to eliminate the possibilities, what did you use to establish the possibilities you're now eliminating? It can't be the evidence, because you have to establish the possibilities before they are there to be eliminated. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for Allah. It's also evidence for Jehovah. It's also evidence for YHWH. It's also evidence for the invisible pink unicorn. It's also evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's also evidence for the Great Snozuflu. It's also evidence for anything and everything that my imagination can conjure up to explain the beginnings of life generally, or the beginnings of man specifically. And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Oh dear, oh dear. Let's pull that nonsense apart.

I said that it's evidence for "God". What is "God"? "God" comes from the Old English, meaning "supreme being, deity"[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=god]. It is not a name, but a ''term''.

According to the Bible, the supreme being (for which, in ''English'' translations, the term "God" is used) has the ''name'' (transliterated from the Hebrew), "YHWH". The anglicised form of this is "Jehovah". The Muslim term for the the supreme being is "Allah".

Now what is the "invisible pink unicorn"? Is it (a) a fictitious being created as a parody, or (b) a claimant to the title "supreme being"? The same question can be asked of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Snozuflu, and anything else you dream up.

Let's assume for the moment that the answer to the last question was (a). Then no, evidence for a supreme being is ''not'' evidence for a fictitious being created as a parody, as fictitious beings can't actually create anything!

Alternatively, let's assume that the answer to that question was (b). In that case, "invisible pink unicorn" is nothing more than an alternative term for "God"! As was "Allah"

So the first part of your last paragraph amounts to the following:
: "Applying the same standards, it's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Allah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. Jehovah). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. YHWH). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the invisible pink unicorn). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). It's also evidence for God (a.k.a. the Great Snozuflu). It's also evidence for any other synonym for God that my imagination can conjure up..."
Is that ''really'' any sort of answer to my point???? Of course not!!

:Well, firstly, you seem to be wanting to duck the argument by playing semantics. Well, this is flawed as, you seem to be saying that God is a generic term for a supreme being. Well, it's not - that's god. Small 'G'. God, big 'G', is a proper noun - the name for the Christian god. Secondly, your argument seems to be 'everything is God unless I say it's not'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:I should really expand on that - you see, you're putting a false dichotomy. You're saying that something must be either (a) or (b). What if it's something else? What if the invisible pink unicorn is not a 'supreme being', but simply a quite powerful one? What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster is simply a creature from another planet? An example I gave below - what if we're a cosmic lab accident? [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:59, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: It's not semantics. People often use an initial capital for ''pronouns'' referring to God (see, for example, the sentence after next). That they are capitalised does ''not'' mean that they are names. The same with "God"—capitalisation does not mean that it is His ''name''. And no, my argument is based on etymology, facts of history, and logic: not on "everything is God unless I say it's not". You haven't disputed any of my argument, apart from your failed attempt regarding the capital letter, so the argument stands.

:::No, it doesn't, as what you've basically said is that, as well as using 'God' to refer to the Christian god, you can also use 'He' and 'His'. You still haven't proven, in any way, that 'God' can also be used, for example, to refer to the Great Snozuflu. Even if the claim was, in fact, that he/she/it was a 'supreme being', he/she/it would be a god, not 'God'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Your point about a false dichotomy could have some validity, except that I assumed that you were using those invented names as they are normally used, not in some novel way you just decided on.

:::Well, in the case of the Great Snozuflu, what, exactly, is the normal way that term is used? I invented that term, so, in effect, the 'normal way' for that term to be used is whatever I say it is. If I decide that term is referring to a being from another planet, then that's what it refers to. If I decide it refers to a god, then it does. If I decide it refers to my pet cat, and we were created by my cat sneezing and that snot hitting a quantum subspace wave in the fabric of the space-time continuum, which catapulted it back in time, and that was the first set of microbes from which all life evolved, then it does. According to your argument, all three of those scenarios are actually solid science until someone comes up with solid evidence that disproves them. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::If you want to use them that way, then yes, the fact that we exist ''may'' be evidence for aliens ("a creature from another planet"). But as I point out above, where did ''this'' creature come from? Ultimately, you get back to a supernatural Creator as the ultimate cause.

:::Nope, sorry. Ultimately, you get back to a cause. Scientifically, there is no evidence that it must be a 'supernatural Creator'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::So even if you are correct, I'm still correct! Further, "evidence" can support more than one explanation. So our existence being evidence for aliens does not preclude our existence ''also'' being evidence for God.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::But we're back at the 'it must be evidence for God, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it' argument, which is no argument whatsoever. The question being asked is 'how did we come to exist?' You're saying the answer is, 'we exist, so it must be that God created us.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

"''And, of course, it's also evidence for evolution.''": Only if evolution has the ''capability'' of creating us. But it doesn't, as it cannot create genetic information.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:22, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'll actually have to double check, but I think the mechanism for creating this genetic information is technically not part of evolution, so your second sentence is correct, but your first is not. If I wrong in this, then both your sentences are incorrect. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:39, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:Well, I've checked, and the answer seems to be that it depends on exactly what you mean by evolution. If you mean the entire process (which is the definition used by most, if not all, evolutionary scientists), then, yes, the mechanism for creating this genetic information is part of evolution, and thus your second sentence is wrong, in addition to your first one. If you restrict evolution to only the mechanism of the selection of the traits that are changed from one generation to the next, then, no, it's not included, and thus it is only your first sentence that is incorrect, but you miss out that evolution does not need to create genetic information as another mechanism does this. This is backed up by the fact that this has been observed to happen. [http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information.html Here], for example, is an article detailing a few.
:The other point, of course, is, even if you were completely and totally correct to say that evolution was incapable of creating genetic information, and thus incapable of creating us, the argument for our mere existence backing up God, when it comes down to it, is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we must have been sneezed out of the nose of the Great Snozuflu because otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it. Or that we are the result of a hyper-advanced alien race's lab experiment that went wrong, otherwise we wouldn'r be here to talk about it, etc, etc, etc. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 14:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
:: Yes, I mean microbe-to-man evolution, and yes, the creation of new genetic information is ''supposed to be'' part of this process. The problem is, ''it doesn't work''!

::: You're not getting the distinction. Some people (generally not scientists) think that evolution is only concerned with the actual mechanism whereby genetic features change from generation to generation. This means that this mechanism takes existing genetic features and alters them. Evolution is normally regarded by scientists as also including the mechanism whereby these genetic features arose in the first place. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: As for the "observations" backing up the idea that mutations can create information, let's have a look at them:
::* "''people ... acquired mutations that allow them to continue digesting milk into adulthood''", "''Creationists ... dismiss this as a malfunction, as the loss of the ability to switch off the production of the milk-digesting enzyme after childhood.''": Okay, that's the claim and counter-claim. How do they refute the creationist claim? They don't—they move on to the next claim!

:::I'll give you a clue - evolution states that advantageous genetic features arise and are selected for, and thus spread through that selection process. Guess what the ability to digest milk as an adult is, in the circumstances detailed in the article? Depending on how you define 'information', that means that is either an increase in information (as the body gains the information not to eliminate the ability to digest milk) or a decrease in information, as the mechanism for this is a situation whereby the body fails to produce the enzyme to trigger the elimination of this ability. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::* "''a simple change in gene activity in sea squirts can turn their one-chambered heart into a working two-chambered one. Surely this counts as increasing information?''": Er, no. Simply ''suggesting'' that an increase in information was the cause does not make it so.

:::You're missing the point. They know the cause - a change in gene activity. The results of this change is the development of a more complex heart, which is exactly the kind of thing evolution requires. This more complex heart also requires more information in the genetic sequence - the information to create two chambers, not one. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::* "''Some monkeys have a mutation in a protein called TRIM5 that results in a piece of another, defunct protein being tacked onto TRIM5. The result is a hybrid protein called TRIM5-CypA ...''": So a mutation causes an ''existing'', but unused protein to be put to use. I can't tell much about this one, but it doesn't appear very convincing.

:::So, what 'information' would a completely non-working protein be? If God created it, the only 'information' would be 'I can't create very well, as I left all sorts of useless crap in the genetic code'. This mutation adds information by taking a useless piece of protein and adding it to a working protein, thus creating a different protein. Again, exactly what evolution needs to work, especially as the part you lopped off that sentence is, 'which can protect cells from infection with retroviruses such as HIV.' [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: And that's it. Three examples, presumably the best they could come up with, and none of them stack up.

:::Well, in short, that is an article detailing three instances of exactly the kind of changes that the Theory of Evolution predicted way back before the existence of genes and genetic code was even known, and you're still saying that evolution is impossible and cannot happen. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: "''the argument for our mere existence backing up God ... is that 'God must have created us, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it'. Well, by the same token, I can say that evolution must have overcome that barrier, otherwise we wouldn't be here to talk about it.''": Yes, you could say that. But just like atheists dismiss that argument about God, I can dismiss it about evolution. If you want to believe ''on faith'' that evolution can do this, then I can, ''with at least equal legitimacy'', believe it about God, and you can't reject me doing so, and be consistent. To put it more bluntly, calling that faith in evolution "science" and my faith in God "religion" as though the two were somehow qualitatively different—as so many do—is dishonest.

:::Thank you - you have just defeated your own argument. If you remember, it was you who originally advanced that our mere existence was evidence for God. I merely pointed out that by the same standards, it was also evidence for evolution, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the invisible pink unicorn, etc, etc, etc. By my standards, not yours, this is not evidence for any of them, including evolution. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:: But there ''is'' a difference. That is, claiming that evolution can create new information is ''inconsistent'' with our ''observations'' that information only comes form an intelligence, but claiming that God can do it is ''consistent'' with those same observations. It still isn't proof, and ultimately is taken on faith. Are you therefore agreeing that your view is a faith position?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:58, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No, because your assertion that 'information can only come from intelligence' is wrong. I'll give you an example. Go to the number pad on your computer keyboard. Close your eyes and type in four numbers completely at random. I'll do the same - 4337. The result is information, in my case, the number four thousand three hundred and thirty-seven. Randomness is, in fact, capable of producing information. It may not be useful information, but, guess what? Not everything in any creature's genetic sequence is actually useful. In fact, it's fairly typical that there's plenty that's not. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:20, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Incidentally, you touched on 'my position' being faith-based. Well, I am actually an agnostic. However, I am an agnostic from a philosophical position - there is no guarantee that science will be able to give all the answers to the whole of existence, and there is no argument that persuades me about any particular religion. Science, however, is based on evidence, and there is no objective evidence of God, or any other god-like being, so you can have faith that God exists from a religious standpoint, and you can say that God might exist from a philosophical standpoint, but you cannot base any science on the idea God exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 16:57, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Typing in a number into a computer requires a keyboard/computer and a keyboard/computer require intelligence. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A raindrop falling into a lake causes a ripple. That ripple contains information on the force with which the raindrop hit the lake. Information from a completely unintelligent source. Information comes from everything and anything.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:08, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::I suggest looking at the concept of [[Intelligent design|specified complexity]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:17, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::Basically a claim of incredulity. Just because the information in DNA leads to a specific result (the protein and it's properties), is not to say that the drip of water doesn't, it leads to the ripple, which may lead to a number of specific results. The drop is simpler because it cannot replicate itself. Imperfect replication is the key to DNA's success. The selfish gene, it is indeed a truly brilliant theory (though in truth I don't think you could claim it even as a theory, it is simple logic). In short my point with the previous comment was simply to show that just because a system contains information, it most certainly does not mean that system, or information, was made by an intelligence.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:31, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Evolutionism

2008-04-30T21:08:35Z

Raggs:

Guardian (UK)

2008-04-29T19:39:37Z

Raggs:

A [[UK]] national daily [[newspaper]] known for its [[liberal]], even extreme left-wing stance, being pro-[[abortion]] on demand, anti-[[Bush]] and critical of [[Tony Blair]]'s support for the war in [[Iraq]]. The Guardian has just celebrated the publishing of its 50,000th edition.

Originally known as the [[Manchester]] Guardian, since it was originally published there, it is owned by a leftist charitable organisation, the Scott Trust.

Regardless of it's political stance it's great strength is that it rarely (in comparison to most other common newspapers in the UK) publishes sensationalist articles, preferring a quieter more balanced (and researched) approach.

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]

The Times of London

2008-04-29T19:32:24Z

Raggs: Just adding it's a respected paper over here.

'''The Times''' is a leading, and well respected, British daily newspaper founded in 1785 as ''The Daily Universal Register'', changing its name to ''The Times'' in 1788. Nicknamed 'The Thunderer', it is regarded as the newspaper of the British Establishment and [[Tories]] and has traditionally followed a right-of-centre political line, sometimes embarrassingly so, as with its editorial support of [[appeasement]] in the 1930s. The paper was closed down by an industrial dispute between December 1978 and November 1979. Since 1981, ''The Times'' and associated titles have been owned by [[News Corp]], a giant global mainstream media conglomerate owned by [[Rupert Murdoch]] who owns newspapers and television stations around the world such as The Sun (UK), Sky TV(UK), Fox TV(USA), Fox News(USA) and Fox Movie Studios(USA). In 1986 the newspaper editorial and production facilities were moved from central London (near [[Fleet Street]]) to a new site at [[Wapping]], east London, where modernised plant and working methods were to be employed. This prompted a year-long strike by printworkers, accompanied by picket-line violence, but production of the newspaper was never completely interrupted.

[[Category:United Kingdom Newspapers]]

Talk:Natural law theory

2008-04-28T16:59:47Z

Raggs: New page: Any sane person, that has never experienced orgasm perhaps. Sorry, but if you are convinced it's solely for reproduction, then why do both men and women experience orgasm, a great sense o...

Any sane person, that has never experienced orgasm perhaps. Sorry, but if you are convinced it's solely for reproduction, then why do both men and women experience orgasm, a great sense of pleasure in performing intercourse. Humans are so far thought to be one of only three species where both members of the sex enjoy it, and the other two are also highly intelligent animals.

Sex is enjoyable, why would god have made it so enjoyable if it wasn't to be enjoyed?[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 12:59, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Feminist style

2008-04-15T11:12:42Z

Raggs:

== Title ==

Depsite the fact this article is pathetic (I'm no fan of feminists but really..)I think it Feminist Style sounds awkward. Perhaps 'Characteristics' is a better title.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:46, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sexual harassment ==

Please, please, please tell me that the "think sexual harassment is a bad thing" is a vandal strike, or something. Are you telling me there's people out there who believe sexual harassment is a good thing? And that feminists are the only ones who believe it's bad?[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:12, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Biology and creation

2008-04-10T06:16:22Z

Raggs:

Surely we need to qualify young earth and old earth creationists here? Because young earth creationists cannot agree with the biology of mutation rates, unless somehow suggesting that mutation rates were far higher, and constantly more beneficial just after the flood? Old earth creationists can perhaps accept all the same science as an evolutionist, except that of abiogenesis, but I suspect more often than not they believe that the animals have been design, and the hand of god has guided evolution, which is not a belief held by evolutionists.

I'm positive there are many other aspects of biology that young earth creationists would disagree upon.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 12:45, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:Sorry, I don't understand. What is the "biology of [[mutation rates]]"? And why is that relevant to the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

::I assume Raggs means the rate at which mutations occur, and that would be relevant if there have only been a few thousand years since the flood. But I came here to say something a little different - surely it cannot be true that "Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts" - given that evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory and an observed fact. The article almost seems to be saying "Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, ''except for the biology''"! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:59, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

:::To answer your question on my usertalk (may as well state it here), I've got a zoology degree, have worked in the field of prosimians and am planning on starting a phd soon (hell I hope to become a professor one day, so perhaps I'm not worth listening to ;)). Also I've discussed this and these topics a fair old bit. Humblpi has basically got it. Mutation rates are pretty damn constant, not just in mammals but bacteria as well, the reason they evolve so much faster is their amazingly rapid generation time compared to ours. In short, if you're dealing with a 4000 year time period, mutation rates must have been through the roof (not only a very tiny population to work with, but also a hell of a lot to diversify to), and somehow avoid negative mutations (which are far more dangerous in small populations than large ones). YEC would have a lot of problems with biology (all related to evolutionary concepts, but there are a few). OEC can indeed accept every part of biology unscathed (depending of course on their beliefs). It just seems like a very short article, containing barely any information, and that which is contained needs to be qualified in many places.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 14:01, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::: The article appears to be based on a comment I made [[Talk:Intelligent design controversy|here]], in which I said:
{{QuoteBox|Creationist biologists accept all the biology that an evolutionist accepts, but disagrees on how living things came about. That is, they agree on the observable ''facts'', not on the unobserved ''history''.}}
:::: But the claim that "evolution plays such a central part in modern biology, as an underpinning theory" is simply rhetoric, with little basis in fact. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4755/ here] for more. And (molecules to man) evolution is ''not'' an "observed fact". Nobody has ever seen a creature evolved into a different kind of creature.
:::: I'm curious about Raggs' claim of bacteria evolving fast: What have we ''seen'' bacteria evolving into (i.e. becoming something other than bacteria)? The point is, despite the rapid generation time, we have ''not'' seen them evolve (i.e. change into something else), yet if evolution were true, surely that's exactly what we would expect. In effect, it's a prediction of evolution that has been falsified.
:::: I don't understand the comment about mutation rates being through the roof if you're dealing with a 4,000-year time period. It ''seems'' to be suggesting that creationists believe that everything ''evolved'' from the first living thing, just as evolutionists claim, but over a period of 4,000 years. If this is what Raggs is saying, he is just showing his gross ignorance of the idea that he so readily tries to point out problems with. YECs don't believe in (molecules to man) evolution ''at all''.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:51, 9 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Come now, stop trying to make me out to be ignorant and merely land yourself there instead. We have seen bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics, they don't need to become anything other than bacteria, and they have still evolved. Evolution doesn't have to lead to bacteria becoming anything else (or even multicelluar), you are using a misconceived definition of evolution I'm afraid.
:::::As Humbli stated, and as I would have thought to be obvious, the 4000 year figure comes from the flood. We have pairs of animals, now unless you claim noah manage to fit two (or seven or fourteen of some animals), of every species that exists today, then he must have taken two of every "kind" (at whatever point creationists decide to define as a kind at the time). Now if we only have two to start with, and a lot of species to get to, then we need a lot of mutation to achieve the species variety in such a short time, and even more so because we are dealing with tiny populations. So if you are willing to state creationist biologists believe in everything evolutionists believe in, except molecules to man, then they would also accept mutation rates, however they cannot agree with biologists on these things due to the reasons I've just stated. Mutation is an observable event. Mutation rates are observable. The mechanism of replication is observable. So unless the replication systems have changed a great deal in the past few thousands years (in order to slow down speciation (more comfortable a word for you as opposed to evolution?)), then YEC biologists must argue mutation rates.
:::::And to be honest, I'd like to go back to when mutation was extremely fast, and apparently almost never bad. Because that's another important thing you have to consider, with a large population and slow mutation you have a good buffer to survive negative mutations (doesn't matter if some animals just don't make it), when dealing with a very small population, in which almost every animal has some serious mutations, then you're facing big trouble.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 02:16, 10 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Biology and creation

2008-04-09T18:01:35Z

Raggs:

Talk:Biology and creation

2008-04-09T16:45:20Z

Raggs: New page: Surely we need to qualify young earth and old earth creationists here? Because young earth creationists cannot agree with the biology of mutation rates, unless somehow suggesting that mut...

Illegal aliens

2008-04-09T11:33:55Z

Raggs: Qualified statement about mexicans, and removed one about canadians, austrailians and british until we have a citation.

'''Illegal aliens''' are people who immigrate into a country without having proper documentation or approval by the country in question. Illegal aliens either cross the border illegally or overstay their visas.

Mexican nationals make up the majority of recent illegal aliens in the United States.

Some have cited a population in excess of 12 million foreigners without legal status in the United States (although this figure is debatable).

In the United States, it is illegal and punishable by the law to hire a worker without legal work authorization. Employers who break this law can face stiff fines and /or imprisonment although most conservatives would argue that the law is very infrequently enforced.

== See also ==

*[[Illegal Immigration]]
*[[Universal health care]]

External links

*[http://www.illegalaliens.us/ Illegal Alien.US]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Illegal aliens

2008-04-09T11:31:14Z

Raggs: Not just the US that they cross borders etc, it applies everywhere

'''Illegal aliens''' are people who immigrate into a country without having proper documentation or approval by the country in question. Illegal aliens either cross the border illegally or overstay their visas.

Although Mexican nationals make up the majority of recent illegal aliens, a great number of illegal aliens are also Canadian, Australian, or British Citizens.

Some have cited a population in excess of 12 million foreigners without legal status in the United States (although this figure is debatable).

In the United States, it is illegal and punishable by the law to hire a worker without legal work authorization. Employers who break this law can face stiff fines and /or imprisonment although most conservatives would argue that the law is very infrequently enforced.

== See also ==

*[[Illegal Immigration]]
*[[Universal health care]]

External links

*[http://www.illegalaliens.us/ Illegal Alien.US]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Intelligent design controversy

2008-04-08T14:59:58Z

Raggs: New page: "In fact, evolutionists have no answer to ID's arguments and therefore refuse to deal forthrightly with it's proponents." ID eventually comes down to a godlike figure, which is supernatur...

"In fact, evolutionists have no answer to ID's arguments and therefore refuse to deal forthrightly with it's proponents."

ID eventually comes down to a godlike figure, which is supernatural, science deals with natural phenomena, and thus ID is not science. Science has no arguements to "A creator designed us." because it is impossible to refute. No matter what evidence there is for evolution, "A creator designed us" can still be said. There is no way to disprove it, it relies on the supernatural.

As for dealing with it's proponents, the major push of intelligent design seems to rest far more on trying to find fault with evolution, as opposed to offering good decent evidence (such a signature saying "Made in heaven" "Intelligence Inside" etc etc). Now I'm not complaining about this. Irreducible complexity on the molecular levels is a superb attack on evolution, and absolutely scientific in it's approach. But don't mistake a good attack on evolution, with any sort of positive evidence for any other approach. Pushing scientists to think up feasible routes for these moleculer devices to evolve is excellent work. You cannot expect them to come up with answers instantly, but after time to think, consider and examine, these problems reach plausible solutions.

If you are talking about a general refusal to debate intelligent designists, it's not suprising, an ID proponent can throw a large number of molecular devices at a single scientist who is perhaps an expert in one of these areas, and even then would require a period of time, and access to materials to work out an acceptable path. So in the debate it appears that the scientist is lost for words, where in fact he just can't give you the answer like that. It's like me asking the non-savants of you out there whats the square root of 3042894.124 and expecting an answer immediately whilst you aren't allowed access to a calculating device.

Now I'm not going to bother editing the page, since I know it would merely be reverted, but i felt the need to point out the necessary [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 10:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Spanish Inquisition

2008-03-19T13:10:49Z

Raggs:

''Nobody'' expects the Spanish Inquisition! [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 14:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Damn straight!

what do you mean?? of course i was expecting the spainish inquisition when i clicked the link. or is this one of thiose russian reversal things?? Darth Vacatour

Well, we already have this page... maybe the other one should be named Spanish Inquisition (comedy) or something like that to prevent confusion, or at least put a disambig thing at the top of the other page. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Our main weapons include suprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, absolute dedication to the pope and these spiffy red uniforms![[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 09:10, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Methodological naturalism

2008-03-19T13:06:31Z

Raggs:

Circular definition comes into play here:

:Many scientists of faith nevertheless adopt naturalism in their studies. This is because there is simply no way for an experiment to investigate forces which by their nature cannot be investigated scientifically.

The definition of [[scientific investigation]] is "study of the natural (material) world". Science thus ''limits itself'' to investigation of the [[material world]]. By this definition, studying anything beyord the material world is "not scientific". Therefore (by this definition), studying supernatural phenomena is not scientific, and any experiment which investigates the supernatural is not a scientific investigation.

What then is the rationale for limiting investigation to the material world, i.e. natural phenomena. Is it because there is no way at all to study it? Or simply that we have defined "scientific investigation" as "study of the material world only".

This is like defining geography so that it is limited to [[physical geography]] and excluding human culture, trade, etc. So ''National Geographic]] has gone way beyond its bounds, if [[geography]] is limited only to physical aspects such as geology, ecology, wildlife, etc.

It's really a confounding of method and scope. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:30, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe it's possible to say that science limitis itself to the material world... I mean, science is basically testing the testable. So what you are saying is that science is limiting itself to what is possible... It's not as though you can test the untestable.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 09:06, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Bodybuilding

2008-03-13T21:55:49Z

Raggs: It focuses on particular muscles, not the whole body, also added another famous competitor.

'''Body building''' is a form of training your body for maximum size of particular muscles (and groups), emphasis is on both size and definition. People [[Exercise|exercising]] to increase their [[strength]] and endurence is an excellent way to attain better [[health]]. It is very popular among men because [[muscle]] strength and size can be equated [[masculinity]]. Although this is a debatable presupposition, it clearly takes of [[discipline]] to spend serious time on the muscles in your body.

Different types of [[exercise]] include [[aerobic]], [[cardiac]], and strength training.

== Types of Strength Training==

The Bench Press is probably one of the most widely used forms of body building.
Any other form
of training which exercises the arms and chest are also very common for body builders.

== Contests and famous Bodybuilders ==

Although contests are less useful for health and endurance reasons, men do compete in them for money. [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]] won several Mr. Universe titles and helped to give the sport notoriety.

Another notable Mr Universe contestant (coming in 3rd) was Sean Connery, entering the 1950 contest.

== See also ==

*[[Physical Culture]]
*[[Bernarr Macfadden]]

[[Category:Sports]]

Talk:Air temperature and carbon dioxide

2008-03-13T21:52:36Z

Raggs:

I really don't want to be too nit-picky, and I certainly don't want to cause offense to the author of this article, but it seems a little too specific for it's own page, especially considering how short it is. I realize more could probably be added in the future, but really how much can be said about this particular subject? I would suggest it be included in an existing page, possible the [[Global warming]] page? -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

:This is about the correlation between the two, which Al Gore used to say indicated causation. Indeed, he used it to support the [[AGW hypothesis]]. It certainly deserves a page of its own and should not be hidden within a long, contentious article.

:Wikipedia glosses over the fact that CO2 is driven by air temp - and not the other way around - in its mania to support the secular religion of global warming and the "salvation" of the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

:Please help my be writing everything you know about the correlation between temperature and CO2, particularly if it sheds any light on one causing changes in the other. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:24, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree with DrSandstone. Why not merge this minutia with [[AGW hypothesis]], or [[Anthropogenic global warming]], or [[Runaway greenhouse effect]] or [[Greenhouse effect]], or [[Greenhouse gas]], or [[Science of global warming]]... And I'm sure there are more. Many more, I fear! There seems to be a sudden proliferation of these pages, all looking more like soapboxes than encyclopedia articles. Conservapedia is either an encyclopedia that aims to tell the truth in a trustworthy manner, or it is a medium for pushing a particular point of view on various political, social and scientific issues. Either way, I cannot see how this plethora of overlapping articles helps. What are you trying to achieve? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 14:30, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

::I guess I'm not exactly of the same mind as Hmblpi; it just seems to me that merging all related pages into one comprehensive article on, as I suggested earlier as an example, [[Global warming]], would be more useful than disparate, short articles related to essentially the same concept. My concern is that without the information centralized, it could end up easily getting lost or overlooked. Of course, that's just my opinion, and you're free to do what you like. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 14:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Just to point out that whilst it's true that air temperature can push up CO2 levels (most likely cause is the warming of the oceans, as CO2 (and all gases) become less soluble in warmer liquids). That doesn't actually say anything whatsoever about whether or not CO2 can also push up air temperature. So we can say that CO2 in the past has always increased after temperature, we still cannot say that it cannot increase temperatures, it's even possible that once the CO2 level increases due to natural causes (the 100,000 year cycle may be instigated by the orbit of the sun), it may then trigger a positive feedback system driving up temperatures after.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 17:52, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Cattle

2008-03-03T17:02:27Z

Raggs: /* Christian relevance? */

==Christian relevance?==

Why have you mentioned God in an article about Cows? Perhaps a few more '''facts''' about Cows themselves before speculating about their origins?

:I do not see why the origin of cows does not qualify as a '''fact''' about them. This entire article sounds childish - "furry animal"? I do not think cows are that furry... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:18, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's true! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 20:19, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

(same info is at Methane article) Sorry, hadn't noticed.

==Placid and milkable by a child?==

That certainly depends on the cow, how often it has been milked previously, and god knows how many other issues. I currently work in a milking shed and whilst many are fine, those new to being milked are often very difficult to work with, as are others who just seem to dislike being handled at all. And there are also recorded instances of herds of cows killing, stampeding over people.[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 12:02, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-02-28T12:56:25Z

Raggs:

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

+ The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it.
::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions. +
::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied. +
::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information. + ::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work. +
::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view? +
::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-02-28T12:54:37Z

Raggs:

With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Perhaps one thing could be a feeling of pressure from other scientists to disclaim god? However personally I don't think that this could fully explain these results to any degree. [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 06:30, 28 February 2008 (EST)
: I think that this is the result of evolutionary indoctrination for the last century or so. Despite many Christians claiming that the Bible and evolution are not incompatible, I believe that it's clear that evolution (supposedly) does away with the need for God. Add to that the peer pressure that you mentioned, and other factors, and I think it can be easily explained.
: In any case, your point is a fallacious argument from authority. Evolutionary scientists keep telling us that creation is unscientific because it invokes a supernatural agent that is beyond the ability of science to study, which, if nothing else, means that these scientists cannot be authorities on the subject. So invoking them as some sort of authority is, as I said, a fallacious argument from authority.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

:: I don't believe evolution does away with the need for god, however it does indeed attempt to refute the idea of a young earth (but then many other older beliefs do this previously, evolution merely attempts to fill in the gaps of an already presumed old earth). If you believe an old earth scenario, then evolution does not necessarily do away with god.
:: As for your argument about not being able to invoke them as an authority, I do it less from the idea of them being scientists, but more from the idea that these are people who are exceptionally intelligent. They not only have a wealth of knowledge from memory, but also have an ability to understand concepts and the application of these concepts, those in the top science academic groups are also those that can often use the concepts in new ways, invent new concepts, or bring together different concepts. They are very likely some of the most intelligent people, and have an overwhelming disbelief.
:: Indoctrination of evolution just disproves a YEC view. And a lot of christians (and jews since they use the old testament too), do not see this as the truth, and that the Old Earth scenario is the truth (regardless of what is stated in the bible). So since in the majority, old earth and belief of god (be it from merely a first cause god, a tinkering god etc etc), is the common belief, I do not believe that evolution alone can be used as this explaination. I agree that evolution can be used to help people disbelieve in god, it doesn't do it sufficiently to any thinking man (and that is certainly what these men are). It doesn't attempt to answer abiogenesis, the beginnings of the world, etc etc, and even if you accept evolution to a large point, there are stages that still raise questions, like how did humans become so successful, complex animals from multicelluar clumps of bacteria etc. These are not gentlemen to just take things on faith for the most part (possibly the problem?).
:: Perhaps my last point leads us to another possible answer? The scientific method is one of purely naturalistic causes, it has to be they are the only things testable by us. Perhaps after a lifetime of living a life such as this it just leads you to believing in only the natural? The reason the top scientists have the highest incidence of atheism is because they are the people who have followed the doctrines of science so rigorously for so long?
::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:13, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::: No, evolution does not do away with the need for "a god", or as you put it, a "first cause", but it does, as you indirectly indicate, do away with the need for the God of the Bible, which is the only real candidate that many would consider (in western society at least).
::: The problem with your argument that you use scientists from the point of them being exceptionally intelligent is that science was [[natural science#beginnings|founded]] (<-- read that if you disagree) in a Christian (creationary) world view, and most of the early scientists, in many cases the ''founders'' of various scientific fields, were creationists. The point is that these blokes were also "exceptionally intelligent", and not only did this not cause them to reject creation, their Christian (creationary) beliefs were the basis for their science. So what changed? Did the scientists after them become more intelligent? Or did the ruling paradigm change to an evolutionary one? The latter is the case, although in saying that I acknowledge that it is not just evolution, but the entire naturalistic view. The idea of a Earth much older than the biblical record describes did come before Darwinian evolution, so it wasn't evolution per se that was the problem, but evolution did provide much of the justification for rejection of the creationary view.
::: I dispute that the scientists are not ones to take things on faith. Microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed, yet they take it on faith that such evolution has occurred.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:31, 28 February 2008 (EST)

::::Views have changed on many things in science as more knowledge has become available. I have no arguments whatsoever that the greatest scientists up until fairly recently have been creationists (young earth or old earth). It was the priesthood in victorian times that really advanced science. Sons of rich men took to the clergy and pottered around in their country villages etc observing stuff. Darwin had been fascinated with beetles and naturalism, long before he started training for the clergy (didn't find any new species, but did get the first recording of a species in england). He was training to become a priest until he stepped onto that ship, he was a big supporter of Paley. He spent 10 years after returning to england fighting with himself about his idea, knowing what implications it could lead to. Previous priests had studied geology and come up with the concept of deep time, although they were uncomfortable with this, since it disagreed with what their beliefs were, they couldn't just dismiss the evidence of their eyes. Evolution seemed to give a helpful encouragement to help push this deep time, supporting it, and in turn being supported by it. + The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)
- ::::Another nice bit of trivia is that Newton, recognised by a lot as a superb scientist, spent the majority of his life not on good scientific discovery, but working on alchemy, attempting to turn lead into gold. You think he'd practice alchemy these days? Maybe fusion/fission. More knowledge = changing of opinions. +
- ::::I'm trying to point out that just because the majority of scientists beleived one thing at one point, doesn't mean much. Primate specialists believed chimps were vegetarian, they also beleived pottos and lorises were all very slow-moving, where in fact it's just not true. I'm sure we could both supply a lot more examples of scientific consensus changing when new evidence is supplied. +
- ::::Scientists didn't become more intelligent, but they did gain more information. +
- ::::Is it faith if they believe that whilst they haven't seen it occur, they believe the explaination is sufficient for it to be possible? The first designs of many many machines on paper do not show the actual machine working, but someone capable of understanding the design should be able to see if and how it would be possible for the machine to work. +
- ::::We are diverging a little from the topic here, but I believe it's all part of the discussion. Scientists have been indoctrinated into atheism. But I wonder, how exactly did the scientific community change from a creationism view, to that of an atheistic evolutionary one, unless a majority of scientist accepted evolution and old earth on their merits (sufficient to overturn previously held beliefs) in order to be able to pressurize the rest into this view? +
- ::::[[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 07:54, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The reason the prevailing world view among the intelligent scientists changed from creation to evolution was simply that when evolutionary theory came along it provided a much better explanation than the old theory. Better in the key sense that it is more '''parsimonious'''. The theory of evolution convinced so many scientists, so quickly, because it makes very few assumptions, and explains far more than it assumes. Creationist beliefs are the opposite: a great deal is assumed, very little is explained. And of course "microbes-to-man evolution has never been observed" - it takes about 3 billion years for that to occur, and we've only been watching for a few hundred. That it ''has occurred'' is not an item of faith, but a simple extrapolation from observed evolution in the laboratory and in the field, backed up by a robust set of genetic mechanisms. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 07:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-02-28T12:13:52Z

Raggs:

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-02-28T11:30:35Z

Raggs:

Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in God?

2008-02-28T11:30:19Z

Raggs: New page: With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of Amer...

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2008-02-28T11:28:50Z

Raggs: /* Other */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical debates==
# [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]]
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]]
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; "The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man." - Has Britain REALLY declined?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Define torture]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does "free trade" increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Porn or guns?|Does porn actually cause (not merely correlate to) violence?]]
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Define Civil War]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''
# [[Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]
# [[Is opening the borders the solution to the social security crisis?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]

==Scientific debates==

# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Conservapedia:Why is the evidence in favor of evolution so darn convincing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?]]
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?]]
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Conservapedia:On whether certain articles on human anatomy should be pre-emptively blanked and protected]]
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Why do the creators of conservapeida see wikipedia as un-American?]]
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]

==Other==
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Should weed be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Ribosome

2008-02-25T20:33:11Z

Raggs:

The '''ribosome''' is the cellular [[organelle]] that is the site of [[protein]] synthesis.

== Sources ==
*[http://www.genome.gov/glossary.cfm?key=ribosome National Human Genome Research Institute - Talking Glossary: "ribosome"]

[[Category:Biology]]

Conservapedia talk:Debate Topics

2008-02-25T20:19:08Z

Raggs: Want to add a debate

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]==
With the leading scientists of America (I believe the British numbers are even higher), professing non-belief to a huge majority. And masses of scientists from leading universities of America having a massively increased chance of being agnostic/atheistic, what lessons should we take from the fact that the supposedly best educated (and most likely highly intelligent also), have decided that god either doesn't exist, or at the least has no positive evidence?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3341576

Sorry if this isn't the correct way to get a debate added, but it seems the only way I can spot, not sure where the best place would be for it? [[User:Raggs|Raggs]] 15:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)

==Unicorn==
i tried to edit the unicorn page but was unfortunately unable to do so. can u please inform about unicorns.........

Concerned intellectual

==Texas, presidents from==
We put in 3 presidents from Texas, and had 3 wars; a real brain trust. Who supplied the monies to put these Texans into office? We all know the mentality of Texans; shoot first and ask questions later. We are also suppose to welcome illegals into this country, and help support them, says a man from Texass. I could care less about your stupid party affiliations; and A-Hole is an A-Hole no matter the party.
If a demogog was in office instead of a repugnant, he would have been impeached by now. This shows you the power of the repugnants.{{Unsigned|Take13}}

== Spelling as a Commandment on here ==

The Un-American spelling of the Constitution!

The US Constitution has words like “chuse” and “chusing,” “Pensylvania” (in fact so does the Liberty Bell!), “defence,” and there are more… Oh dear, maybe Conservapedia should edit the US Constitution in accordance to it’s spelling absolutism (hey don’t correct me, the Constitution “improperly” has “it’s” instead of “its” in there… Article 1, Section 10). I’m sure Conservapedia would garner plenty of support since spelling is such a big deal these days. I mean it IS one of the 6 Conservapedia Commandments.

The pinnacle of American ideals and identity is our Constitution, and still I think Conservapedia would find themselves in a rut trying to justify why their spelling should be reflected on there… even though their spelling standards claim to be American, and well, the US Constitution IS American.

Spelling is fluid… it would be interesting to see how American spelling changes. I would hope what it means to be an American doesn’t change as much as spelling…{{Unsigned|Heidilaide}}

:I'll leave it to [[User:Aschlafly|Andrew]] to decide whether to reproduce exactly the spelling of the US Constitution, or to change the spelling.

:We need to remember that the man who, more than any other man, made spelling standard in the [[United States]] was [[Noah Webster]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 15:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== How to add debate topics ==

Please tell us HOW!! I tried, but apparently got the link wrong the first couple of times... --[[User:Mathematica|Mathematica]] 03:31, 4 April 2007 (EDT) moved from article page by [[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]]

:The instructions are basically at the bottom of the page. I would also recommend finding another debate page that has a similar format and copying in the appropriate wiki markup, like the debate box at the top, headings for things like "Yes" and "No" (or whatever is appropriate). Also, if answers should fall under such headings, try to make the question very clear to avoid misunderstanding.

Yes, please add instructions. Otherwise, I'm sorry for creating discussions out of order. --[[User:Ephilei|Ephilei]] 10:47, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dead links==

I notice rather a large number of these are now red links. I assume that is because the topics were deemed inappropriate and deleted by admins. Since the format is "create the link, then start the debate page", there should be ''no'' red links on this page. Therefore, later this evening I am going to goof off from work again and remove them - unless someone asks (or tells) me not to. I am also going to add an exciting new page I'd like to see ongoing discussion about - CPdians ideas and opinions about the 2008 Presidential candidates! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I thought it was that nobody had bothered to start the debate... [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:23, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Idiotic jokes and pointless debates ==

The last ones should be erased

== What went wrong? ==

I joined conservapedia for a laugh, but SHOCK! These debates are actually interesting and thought-provoking. I'll be sticking around here, deffo. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 19:25, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:The Vacillating Investor]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. I suggest that it go under a new subheading, "Puzzles." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:29, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Is Sexual Orientation Inherent or Chosen?]]==
Please add this to [[Debate topics]]. It should probably go under "Philosophical Debates" or "Scientific Debates".--[[User:Patthew|Patthew]] 12:54, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add [[Debate:Which_is_better:_science_or_religion%3F|Debate: Which is Better: Science or Religion?]]==
This debate page was created earlier today, though I do not remember who created it. Discussion has already begun, but it is unlikely to continue if not added to the list. Please add, perhaps under "Philosophical". Thanks!

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia: Is Wikipedia really as bad as it is made out to be]]==
I realise by its very name this debate might seem contrary to Conservapedia's aims in distancing itself from the site, but please read my argument to see I'm not taking sides, I'm more arguing for the development of reference sources. Hope it's a good debate [[User:Argonaut|Argonaut]] 20:02, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

==Request for a sysop to add debate [[Conservapedia:Is there a problem with simply copying content from other sites?]]==
I feel like this is a valid question, especially during the speedy new page creation during the Team Contest. This should probably be in the "Debates about Conservapedia" section. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:54, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Add: Conservapedia:There is no [[Fossil fuel]] or [[Peak oil]]==
Scientists contend that the supply of oil will [[Peak oil|peak]]. But none can agree on an exact month, year or even decade. Other scientists want to research [[abiotic oil]] (a process where oil is made without fossils) but are prevented by the DOE from conducting their research. Success in this area may mean uncovering vast amounts of oil.[[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:08, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Locked forever?==

Is anyone ever going to post a new debate topic?[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:25, 28 September 2007 (EDT)

Ya I want to post a new debate topic actually. I was wondering if it is right that the user "TK" should be able to crank the ban hammer so often. I think his intention is good, however his means are a bit extreme.--[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:07, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL! Crank out that topic, man....let's see what you got! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Hello TK. I am a recent family friend of the Schllllllllllllafys. They are unquestionably good people. I am not implying that you are not. Mr S. told us recently that you are a "guard dog" of conservapedia. We, being our class, came up with a grand total of about 35 user blocks lol. To be honest I think that is quite funny, barring the fact that two of them were mine. Now there is about 40 or so people in our class, and 35 accounts banned, theoretically assuming noone one has made more than one account each, however this is not true at least in my case. That comes out to roughly 90% of the class has been banned at least once, give or take. Now this class has been going on for three weeks, and I believe that the majority of the students are new to the class, and thus new to Conservapedia. So, the statistics, ROUGHLY, I emphasize this because I do not believe that they are exact, but I feel they are in the ballpark.

STATS:

40 new users
35 bans
3 weeks = a clear disproportionate number of bans. To your defense I am not positive about the nature of these bans. If they were legitamate then I apologize now. However I feel that this would be very unlikely because from at least what I heard they said that the nature of the bans were for "innapropriate names", which were at least from their point of view -IL-ligit'.

That is all I can say if you have anything to disprove me I gladly except defeat and move on. On a random note could you inform me, or at least tell me of any possible way that I could join your team in that contest that I saw your ID listed in. I'm not sure but I think that the name of your team was Air something lol I'm not sure. Any way, thank you for taking the time to right back, it is always appreciated. --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:35, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't Wikipedia, we require users to register, and they may have only one account. So, having at least two, you are in violation already. Your "class" will continue to be banned so long as they choose inappropriate names and use proxy servers to mask their true IP. Always good to hear you appreciate my ''righting'' back. As a class project, check the block logs and see who is blocking the most users. Now I wish you Godspeed! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 12:41, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Low blow man with the "righting" back comment lol. Another quick q, I was reading your I guess biography page, or that page regarding you and your life style. I too am a born again Christian and I have to problem admitting this openly. Could you point me to the guidelines on how to create a page such as this. And fyi, I will let Mr. S know about this convo in about two hours when I go to his class. =). Peace --[[User:JonL|JonL]] 12:47, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...really scared! :p Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:22, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

== Why do we need debate topics? ==

This seems like a giant spot for Wikipedians to flame us.

==Archive==

Someone needs to archive these, urgently. Some haven't been touched for 4-5 months! [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 20:36, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Oops==
Alright, I admit it... I mistakenly thought I was improving two questions under the Philosophical Debate questions heading, and I know I broke some links. What can I do to fix this? [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)

::Ah! I think I've got it! [[User:Alexander|Alexander]] 14:07, 21 December 2007 (EST)