Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Herb Kohl

2011-01-29T14:57:23Z

RianB:

[[Image:Herb.jpg|150px|right|thumb]]
'''Herb Kohl''', February 7, 1935 (age {{age|1935|2|7}}), is a senior [[Democratic]] [[United States Senator]] from [[Wisconsin]]. Over the course of the current congress Kohl has voted with the majority of his Democratic colleagues ninety-five percent of the time during the current Congress. <ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000305/</ref> In 1958, Kohl received a M.B.A degree from Harvard School, and after serving in the United States Army Reserves from 1958 to 1964, worked as president of Kohl Corporation and served as owner of Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. <ref>http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000305</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: United States Senators]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]
{{DEFAULTSORT: Kohl, Herb}}
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2011-01-01T21:08:02Z

RianB: /* Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

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

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

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

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

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

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.

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

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

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

== Examples? ==

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

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

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

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

==Atheism==

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

==A Thought==

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

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

== Not until it's done ==

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

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

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

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

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

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

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

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

== Beginning of the universe ==

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

== Eyesight ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Engineering ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Reversion explained ==

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

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

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

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

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

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

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

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

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

== Unclean hands and food ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Other religions ==

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

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

== Mathematics suggestion ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wave particle Duality ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Lifespan ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== End of the world edit ==

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

== Miracles ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== What is not foreknowledge. ==

'''Quantum Mechanics'''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: Griffirg, what is valid at the atomic level is presumptively valid at larger scales also. Or would you observe an apple falling from a tree and then claim that says nothing about planetary motion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:23, 13 November 2010 (EST)

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

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

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

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

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-12-31T19:47:36Z

RianB: /* Would the Dating of Ice Mummy be accurate? */ new section

Talk:Starlight problem

2010-12-15T21:28:41Z

RianB: /* New Proposal */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

Removed "facts" which were not facts. I will not hesitate to block offenders of the conservapedia commandments. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

So, you take away the entire description of the problem, all mention of commonly held conceptions of the speed of light, and replace the entire article with YEC prpaganda. Now thats fair and balanced. Send your resume to Faux News quick, you have a brilliant career ahead of you. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 21:09, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

He means it! I got blocked for a week for saying light from the Andromeda Galaxy had been traveling for three million years. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 20:25, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'd still like to know how he's going to debunk the parallax measurement technique, which is just highschool geometry, the only variable is the distance between the Earth and the Sun, which is pretty well known, we've even sent space probes to the Sun...
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

How come removing information because it doesn't jive with conservative's idea of "facts" is ok, but what is in the article at this moment isn't factual either? Laughable.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 20:39, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

== My applogies, but thats funny ==

The Earth is only 6k years old, but the rest of the universe is billions of years old because of time dilation. Wouldn't it just be easier to make the Earth a few billion years old too, without invoking divine intervention? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
: I meant what I wrote. Please don't change my comments. The first sentence is a restatement of the current article statement. The second sentence is Occam's Razor. I am by no means a YEC. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't like the dilation idea either. I prefer setterfield's explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, the speed of light would have to have been A LOOOOT faster to make up for what we see today, did Setterfield ever consider that since <math>E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4</math> : mass, impuls and energy of everything in the Universe would also change A LOOOOT, you'd need A LOOOOT of divine intervention to keep everything in place!

At least with the time dilation theory only our Solar System and its surrounding would have needed divine intervention.
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

== Argument with no description ==

Currently, there is no description of what the starlight problem is. This has been removed. All that remains is the YEC viewpoint as some time dilation saying that this isn't a problem. If there is to be an article here (and there should - it is likely to get linked to fairly often) there should be a reasonable description of what the starlight problem is and why it is brought up so often. --14:43, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

This has been fixed. Without a statement of what the starlight problem is then there would be no reason for this page. Since Andy also stated that conservapedia is not specificaly YEC POV then we can have this claim as long as it has actual evidence and the sources are well cited.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:26, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Total mismatch ==

Two quotes from the same article:
*"The starlight problem is an argument against the Big Bang Theory which theorizes a universe of billions of years old."
*"The starlight problem applies only to a young universe."
These statements contradict each other, unless you want to argue that "billions of years old" is "young". --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:41, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm guessing the "which" modifies "big bang theory" not "starlight problem". [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:58, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

::You guess correctly, but that's not what I mean. Judging by these sentence, it is established that the starlight problem argues against an old universe ''and'' only argues against a young universe. So which is it? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:00, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

Problem fixed by better explanation. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== Setterfield vs. Hartnett ==

I can't help but notice that Hartnett's cricism of c-decay has been silently removed by Conservative. Also, how is Setterfield more accepted that Hartnett by most creationists? Hartnett's article points out flaws in Setterfield's theory, but I can't see much criticism or doubt of Hartnett's theory.

I think this section of the article needs some major fact-checking and potential rewriting. If nobody minds, I would volunteer. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 12:57, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Beat you to it! But you may want to review it yourself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:22, 10 November 2007 (EST)

== solution to a problem ==

according to this page, there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation. I added some pretty rational and easy to understand solutions that were discarded and reverted back to its original inaccurate state. The problem is twofold

1. supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?

2. the CMB ISN'T actually perfectly equal in all directions, there are minor fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background. Also the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited, nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy

{{unsigned|Jwalker}}

:"''...there is supposedly a contradiction with the big bang model and the cosmic microwave background radiation.''": Supposedly? It would seem that there ''is'' a problem.
:"''supposing that billions of years isn't enough time for the CMB to have dispersed, how is a 6,000 year-old earth going to solve the problem?''": One answer might be that it was created that way, so there is no problem to solve. Secondly, claiming that an alternative explanation won't solve the problem (even if true) does not mean that there is no problem for the Big Bang model. That argument is simply a red herring.
: "''...there are minor fluctuations...''": The problem is not that there are no fluctuations at all, but that that the fluctuations are nowhere near big enough.
: "''...fluctuations that mirror the topography of the universe at the time of the formation of the background.''": How do you know that they mirror it? Or is this simply the theory?
: "''...the statement that all parts of the universe would need to interact in order for something to be evenly distributed is not cited...''": There are a couple of citations there. Or are they not for this specific point?
: "''...nor could it be because it's a logical fallacy''": How could it be a logical fallacy that there needs to be interaction in order that different areas even out with each other?

: I am reverting your latest edits. They basically amount to arguing against a view that you oppose, in an unencyclopedic way. And apart from a reference that there ''are'' (very small) fluctuations, none of your additional material was cited, yet you criticised the existing article for lack of citation!
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)

== Backward versions ==

Shouldn't it be mentioned that none of these "theories" are accepted by mainstream science? They're all backwards versions of the scientific method: Take your ideology, and mold a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. Please tell me, is this some kind of a joke? [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 12:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:The name of the article is the "Starlight problem" and it makes clear in the first sentence that it is a problem based upon a Creationist perspective of the origin of the universe. I'm not sure this should be a problem for you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

: Please tell me, Jparenti, that your joking? The Big Bang is a case of taking an ideology (naturalism: that there is no God) and molding a theory around it, instead of trying to describe the natural world for what it is. The authors of the last two mentioned are scientists who have worked (Humphreys) or still work (Hartnett) in secular research, and are designing their ideas on the basis of established scientific principles. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:45, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::You are mistaken. Nowhere in the theories that hypothesize a Big Bang is there a specific mention that "God didn't do it". You are simply assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang to create the universe, and that's pretty presumptive of you, considering I don't think God would consult with us first. This type of thinking is what's wrong with Conservapedia, and I feel it necessary to examine that position and show why it is fallacious. You can have God and the Big Bang, if you so choose. And this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever. It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old. That's forcing your science into your ideology, and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories. [[User:Jparenti|Jparenti]] 10:23, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, I'm not assuming that God couldn't use a Big Bang, and no, it's not presumptive. I'm basing my comments on what He has told us He did. Rather, it's presumptive of you to suggest that He may have used a method which is contrary to what He told us He did. He told us that the Earth was created before the sun and stars. The Big Bang story doesn't allow for that.
::: And the Big Bang story ''presumes'' that the Earth is not in a special place, contrary to what the Bible indicates. Lest you presume I'm saying something that I'm not, please note that I'm not claiming that the Bible says that the Earth is literally in the centre of the universe. But the Bible ''does'' indicate that the Earth (and its occupants) is the centre of God's attention. Yet the Big Bangers can't stand the idea that the Earth might occupy a special place. Because all the galaxies appear to be moving away from us, it ''looks'' like we are at the centre. But Edwin Hubble, for one, didn't like this idea:
{{QuoteBox|Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, …. But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs …. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory because the theory postulates homogeneity.}}
::: So the Big Bang model is based on a philosophical position that denies the biblical account, not on scientific evidence.
::: "''...this article is based on no scientific evidence whatsoever...''": This article explains the apparent problem that distant starlight poses for a young-Earth view, and relates various answers that have been offered to explain that apparent problem. To that extent, it doesn't need scientific evidence, because it's not putting a scientific case. However, as far as the particular explanations go, they ''are'' based on scientific evidence, which is alluded to if not mentioned in the article. For example, Humphreys' and Hartnett's models are based on scientific laws that are based on scientific evidence. The scientific laws are well-accepted ones, so surely you're not expecting that this article produce the evidence in support of the theories of relativity?
::: "''It's based on the fact that you don't believe the universe is more than 6,000 years old.''": The Big Bang is based on the fact that its supporters believe the universe is billions of years old. So what's the difference? (And no, the billions of years have ''not'' been observed, because we haven't been around that long to observe them and don't have a time machine.)
::: "''That's forcing your science into your ideology...''": Like Hubble did?
::: "''...and it isn't necessary, because nothing in the Bible contradicts the actual theories.''": I've shown a fallacy of that above. In addition, you yourself clearly believe that the Big Bang story is incompatible with a 6,000-year-old Earth, yet that the Earth is around that old ''according to the Bible'' is undeniable (for one thing, the time from the start of the universe to the appearance of man was six days, and from there to dates known from other sources is easily calculable from the chronogenealogies in the Bible.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I'm very confused, I see "The Big Bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe, yet because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out, yet observations today show it to be extremely uniform[3] (with fluctuations at the part-per-million level[4])." this problem does not exist if it supposes that the Universe is billions of years old. Also scientists do not know what caused the Big Bang...
::::I am sorry to hear your very confused. Could you please comment on this starlight problem for the [[Big Bang]] theory: http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem#Starlight_Problem_for_the_Big_Bang_Theory Also, given the many problems with the old Universe arguments, I don't believe the old Universe model is on a firm foundation: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Astronomy Lastly, the respected cataloger of scientific anomalies, [[William Corliss]], has looked through the scientific literature and found about 80 anomalies to the old earth paradigm in the field of geology as can be seen [[William Corliss|HERE]]. .[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:29, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:::::Light created in transit: Why would God intentionally mislead us and also leads to Last/Next Thursdayism? Moon-Spencer theory: Idea≠theory. Decrease in the speed of light: Proven flawed although sparked new research so overall a good thing for science. Decrease in the speed of light: it's axioms are flawed there for it's not even wrong. Also the original concept of the Big Bang had God as the cause.

:::::: From a purely logical viewpoint, it strikes me as more logical for a designer to create the beautiful and valuable item (item) first and then (or simultaneously) create its supply (a star). Usually the goal of an invention is attained first before an assembly line is built to mass produce it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:15, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Logical fallacy? ==

What is the logical fallacy mentioned in the article? Please don't tell me that the speed of light has nothing to do with distance. If you believe that, then I suggest you read the article's main section before replying.--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 22:41, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:The logical fallacy is if you are using the ''distance'' the stars are from Earth as proof that the universe must be older than 6,000 years. I guess whether or not it's a logical fallacy depends on how it is presented; the argument is often used very simplistically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Relativity ==
This article seems to agree with a lot of the principles of the theory of relativity, which appears to be inconsistent with other part of conservapedia, in particular, [http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity], entitled 'counter examples to relativity'. I think this article was written by a liberal parading as a true conservative.

== New Proposal ==

I'm not entirely well versed in theoretical physics but for anyone who is, this article by Dr. Jason Lisle seems like it has some interesting possible solutions:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention

[[User:RianB|RMBchillin]] 16:28, 15 December 2010 (EST)

Talk:Starlight problem

2010-12-15T21:28:16Z

RianB: /* New Proposal */ new section

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2010-12-02T22:01:34Z

RianB:

There are many brilliant -- and popular -- conservative songs. Here is our growing list:
#"Wouldn't It Be Nice" by the Beach Boys. Pro-marriage.
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.
#"Fast Car" by Tracy Chapman. Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol.
#"Have You Forgotten?" by Darryl Worley. Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
#"Still the One" by Orleans (1976), is a tribute to fidelity in relationships.
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]] rocker Neil Young.
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain...
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref>
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." <ref>http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html</ref>
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
#"Last Kiss" by Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders, covered by other artists. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref>
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band.
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<ref>http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html</ref>
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI "Your Love Is Extravagant"] Casting Crowns
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 "What If His People Prayed"] Casting Crowns
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 "King Without a Crown"] by Matisyahu - A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
#"Take Me Home, Country Roads" by John Denver (and others). Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
#"Sin City" by the Flying Burrito Brothers. Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
#"I Saw the Light" by Hank Williams (and numerous cover versions). Redemption from sin through faith.
#"No Son of Mine" by Genesis.
#"Don't Stop" (Thinking About Tomorrow) by Fleetwood Mac.<ref>Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.</ref>
#"Lightning Crashes" by Live. The joy and significance of childbirth.
#"Takin' Care of Business" by Bachman-Turner Overdrive. The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
#"Cat's In The Cradle" by Harry Chapin. The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
#[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 "The Devil Went Down To Georgia"] by Charlie Daniels. A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
#"Big Money" by Rush - Pro-[[capitalism]]
#"Real American" by Rick Derringer - patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-fight song
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1lSMXE3W8w&feature=related Amazing Grace], a Christian hymn written by English poet and clergyman John Newton (1725–1807), published in 1779.
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related Go Down Moses], performed by: Louis Armstrong; written by: Sy (Arr) Oliver.
#"Walking Contradiction" by [[Green Day]]. Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
#"God and Guns" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A powerful new Skynyrd song that elaborates on the song title.
Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]

Mystery:Why Do Liberals Crave Attention?

2010-08-24T14:25:38Z

RianB:

[[Liberals]] crave attention more than others. Why?

Here are several possible reasons:

*liberals are jealous of [[God]], and seek attention so they can pretend to be like God
*liberals are self-centered and highly selfish, and most of what they do is focused on themselves
*liberals are unable to do anything meaningful, so craving attention fills the vacuum
*those who can, do; those who can't instead crave attention to make up for their lack of genuine efforts
*craving attention is associated with less intelligence; liberals are often intellectual wannabees rather than genuinely bright
*Liberals know they only make up twenty percent of the population while conservatives account for 40. When you're outnumbered two to one, the only thing left to do is demand attention like they were a majority.
[[Category:mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Liberals Crave Attention?

2010-08-24T14:24:43Z

RianB:

[[Liberals]] crave attention more than others. Why?

Here are several possible reasons:

*liberals are jealous of [[God]], and seek attention so they can pretend to be like God
*liberals are self-centered and highly selfish, and most of what they do is focused on themselves
*liberals are unable to do anything meaningful, so craving attention fills the vacuum
*those who can, do; those who can't instead crave attention to make up for their lack of genuine efforts
*craving attention is associated with less intelligence; liberals are often intellectual wannabees rather than genuinely bright
*Liberals know they only make up twenty percent of the population while conservatives account for 40. When you're outnumbered two to one, it would make sense that they crave they crave the attention usually given to a countries majority ideology.

[[Category:mystery]]

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2012

2010-08-12T21:02:44Z

RianB: /* Enrollment */

''The first lecture is being developed at [[Draft American Government Lecture One]].''

Enroll by inserting your user name into this file: click "Edit this page" below, then position your cursor in the Enrollment section below, and then click 10th tab from the left above.

"American Government Fall 2010" is a 14-week course that teaches the basics of government, both federal and state. It covers the political process and operation of the U.S. government, and may be the most important course you will ever take. It includes review of the U.S. Constitution, including concepts like the separation of powers among the branches of government.

'''Unlike other courses, this class will tie closely to current events and the lectures will be revised online and tailored to the most up-to-date available information'''.

Students in this class will make predictions at three different points about the outcome of the midterm elections on November 2nd: as the first homework assignment, after learning a month's worth of material, and just prior to the election.

Students seeking to earn college credit can take the CLEP or AP exams upon successful completion of this course.

This course begins September 2nd and already several dozen students have enrolled. Please add your user id. (as explained above) if you would like to participate in this course in any way, either as a student or as a teacher on this site.

The instructor is Andy Schlafly, who has taught over 15 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school.

== Enrollment ==

--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT) (instructor)

--[[User:MartinLXA|Martin Amrowski]] 13:11, 6 June 2010 (EDT) (student)

--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 15:04, 6 June 2010 (EDT) (student)

--[[User:Beardude1963|Beardude1963]] 15:00, 7 June 2010 (EDT) (student)

--[[User:PNarcisse87|Paul Narcisse]] 13:02, 8 June 2010 (EDT) (student)

--[[User:FloM|Florencia Miguez]] (Student)

--[[User:AJ4JQ|AJ4JQ]] 10:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT) (Student)

--littlehouse (student)

--[[User:OurFuture12|Daniel Bruski]] 10:07, 7 July 2010 (EDT) (Student)

--[[User:Jma|Jma]] 00:29, 9 July 2010 (EDT) (Student)

--[[User:James1962|James]] 08:30, 9 July 2010 (EDT) (Student)

--JohnnyZig (student)

--[[User:Israelgarza|Israelgarza]] 22:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)israel garza (student)

--tallone

--[[User:RMallett|RMallett]] 18:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT) (Student)

--RianB (student)

--running total of in-person enrollment: 34 (as of August 6, 2010)

(add your id above)

== Special concepts ==

This course will include many concepts not included in most run-of-the-mill government courses, such as:

*the difference between politics and history, and the similarity between politics and team sports; impediments to teamwork and communication

*political cycles

*political factions, such as Big Labor, anti-war, pro-life, Second Amendment, etc.; interest groups and their scorecards and endorsements, such as the NRA and Elena Kagan and the effect on Harry Reid

*Tea Party: the decentralized political party

*declining role of newspapers, and increasing role of the internet

*the effect of low voter turnout, discuss in the context of initiatives; effect of initiatives on candidates on the ballot

*free speech and campaign finance

*pending court cases concerning the structure of government

*[[media bullying]] (e.g., post-election interviews for [[Rand Paul]]), media bias, [[double standard]]s in reporting news, effect of the bias in misleading the public

*famous expressions and special vocabulary (as in sports): "all politics is local," "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" "coattails", "political capital," "midterm elections," "filibuster", "voice vote," (add more)

*election process: various signature requirements to qualify for the ballot, use of convention rather than public elections in some areas, primary election, general election, concept of endorsements, term and qualifications for various offices

*correlations of voting patterns by "voting blocs"; "single issue" voters

*initiatives and referenda: how different states handle this differently, track record of various issues, effect on others on the ballot

*polling, pollsters, and their impact (e.g., Scott Brown upset)

*contrast the two-party system in America with multiple-party systems in other nations, how the power of political parties ebbs and flows with changes in campaign finance and the strength of interest groups like the NRA

*elements of a political campaign, including who gets involved and why and how

*the role of the Courts: the "least dangerous branch," or now the most powerful branch of government?

*the U.S. Supreme Court, and how it accepts cases for review and its October through June annual Terms

*administrative law, federal and state agencies, and the most cited U.S. Supreme Court decision: ''Chevron''

*"strict scrutiny," "intermediate scrutiny," and "rational basis" as three levels for judicial review in civil rights

*[[consumer confidence]] and the effect of the economy on elections

*[[think tank]]s and their influence; example of Robert Rector's analysis of proposed immigration changes

*the [[political benefit]] to a side from promoting a particular policy

*the concept of "[[political capital]]"

*commenting on proposed regulations

*[[FOIA]]

*line-item veto at state level, not at federal level

*office of county commissioner, or [[freeholder]]

*political asylum and example of homeschooling family that fled Germany to the U.S.

*pundits, talking heads, talk radio, editorials, endorsements

*Biblical basis for our three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 ("The LORD is our judge, the LORD our lawgiver, the LORD our king ....").<ref>Interestingly, this verse is omitted entirely from the [[New American Bible]], and it is put in parentheses in the [[New Jerusalem Bible]].</ref>

*role of internet news sources and bloggers; example: Shirley Sherrod firing.

*swing state

*trial balloon

*[[safe seat]]

*plurality vote, majority vote, [[cloture]], and two-thirds vote (supermajority)

*The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decision in ''Citizens United'', and the liberals' response with the [[DISCLOSE Act]]

*[[Presidential candidates, 2012]] and the political and social undercurrents associated with that contest

(add to list)

== Homework questions ==

*Are politicians leaders or followers of the direction of the nation? Does your answer vary depending on the political position?

*Why is this a famous saying: "All politics is local." Do you agree?

*"Politics is like icebergs: 90% is below the surface." Explain.

*''Why'' should it matter what the original meaning of the U.S. Constitution was?

*Should legislative history be relevant to interpreting a statute?

*Define conservative and liberal. Do you think our nation is becoming more conservative, or more liberal? Are the political cycles oscillating above and below a line that has positive or negative conservative slope?

*Teaching more people how to read: that benefit one political side more than the other? The oil spill in the Gulf: on which side that does that confer greater political benefit? (add more examples)

*Was Jesus pro-life?

== Order of presentation of topics ==

American Government is typically taught in an historical manner. This is disadvantageous for several reasons. First, it's more tedious and less interesting with that approach. Second, politics is not history.

Suggested order of presentation:

# The midterm elections; what it affects, and what it does not affect: [[Draft American Government Lecture One]]
(add more)

== References ==

<references/>

Debate: Are Catholics Christians?

2010-08-03T22:28:01Z

RianB: /* NO */

== YES ==

Absolutely. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in a way that benefits their own personal spirituality. If a Catholic does this, he or she is most certainly a Christian. If he does not, however, then he is not. There are Catholics who are Catholics in name only, just as there are many Fundamentalists who most certainly do not behave in a Christ-like manner. Nevertheless, religion is a personal matter, not one for others to judge. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:18, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

No, Christian is not someone who "follows the teachings of Jesus Christ in way that benefits their own personal spirituality". Just because you follow Christ's teachings doesn't make you Christian. An Atheist could follow the example of Christ because he feels Jesus was moral person, yet deny Christ ever rose from the dead. Is that person a Christian? No. To be a Christian, then you must believe various things. (That Jesus rose from the dead physically, that salvation is by grace through faith alone, etc.) If you don't follow those things, then you're not a Christian. It's not about "behaving" in any particular way. Your own works don't save you. Jesus does. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Christ paid for sins so that we might strive to avoid sin, but realize that forgiveness is always possible if we truly seek it. You seem to make it sound as if we can sin and still be saved even if we don't truly repent, so long as we believe that Christ died for us. Do you believe that this is the case? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:45, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

First, sorry my response took so long. “Christ paid for our sins that we might strive to avoid sin”. No, that’s not how it works. Christ’s death does not open up a window of opportunity, that if we stop sinning, we’ll be saved. That’s not how it works. We’re saved by grace alone. Not by grace and works; just grace. Christ’s death takes away all our sins. All of them, including the ones we haven’t committed yet. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, “For by grace you have been saved by faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast.” We see here that it’s not based on our own good merits or our own ability to stop sinning. Salvation comes entirely through Christ.

Yes, salvation is possible for anyone. But it only comes by the grace of Christ.

Repentance is a result of salvation not a cause of it. Repentance by definition is to be worry for what you’ve done and to turn away from it. So, you must feel sorry and turn away from sins to repent. But, as I said before, we’re not saved by our ability to turn away from sin or do god. It’s all about Christ. So, yes, as long as we believe that Christ (God in flesh) died on the cross for sins, was buried, and rose again from the dead, then we can be saved. Regardless of our works. Note, that doesn’t mean we should keep going bad things. The Bible says that we become new creation when we’re saved. So we should strive to do good. But that is because it comes from thankfulness to God for what He’s already done, not because we’re trying to earn our way to Heaven.

But, in theory, you do argue that it is possible for someone who sins repeatedly to be saved, while someone who is virtuous can be damned? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, I don't believe that anyone is "virtuous". It is my Biblical belief that all people are sinners and all are inherently evil. (Ephesians 2:3). And everyone is a sinner (Romans 3:23). But, in a human sense, yes, there are "good" people, which I assume is what you’re speaking of. I also assume that the multiple sinner is supposed to be someone who has done great dead of evil, like murder, while the virtuous person has done relatively less evil. So, if the person who sins all the time and murder, rapes, steals etc. puts his faith in Christ, then he will go to Heaven and be saved. If the virtuous man who doesn’t sin nearly as much doesn’t trust in Christ, then he will go to Hell. It because it’s only through Christ that one can be righteous. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Jesus's Apostles were the first to be called Christians by Antioch citizens. The Apostle Peter became the founder of the modern day Catholic Church with his successor being Pope Benedict. What Catholic really means is Universal. This became the Univeral Church for Gentiles and Jews. Christian denominations are just seperate branches of the same tree, Jesus. The main difference being the seperate denominations don't adhere to the successor of St. Peter. To believe in Jesus as Lord, that individual has a special Grace from God. To know and believe is called Christianity.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:01, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

: Absolutely. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:25, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The only way to sensible classify religions is through factors such as their origins, demographics, characteristics, and self identifications. Theological debate over Catholic interpretation of the bible is completely irrelevant to whether they count as Christians.

I don't know a whole lot about catholic doctrine, but I think so. Obviously only God really knows. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:57, 3 December 2008 (EST)

As someone with a half dozen first cousins, all catholic, and two uncles, both devoutly catholic, and a devoutly catholic grandmother and grandfather who has attended several catholic funeral rites, marriages, and dozens of Catholic masses (I have never taken communion, just sit and respectfully watch), I think the honest answer--the horrifying truth--is being a Catholic does not in fact guarantee that one is a Christian. The majority of Catholics, I truly believe, are Christians, but ultimately a Christian relationship (a covenant) with God can only be known to the individual. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:16, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== NO ==

This is a ridiculous question. Catholics believe a number of things that are completely contra-Biblical, like prayer to Mary or the ability to work for salvation. Salvation is by faith in Christ alone, and anyone who believes otherwise is doomed to spend eternity with Satan. --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:21, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

Some individual Catholics might be saved, but it's in spite of the Catholic Church. The official church theology is un-Biblical and not Christian. Jesus paid for all sins on the cross and we are saved by grace through faith lone. We're not "infused with grace" and able to work our way to Heaven. It's entirely through Jesus. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:35, 22 June 2008 (EDT) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:38, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Agreeing with the previous two comments. Some Catholics are saved, but in spite of their church rather than because of it. They may have been truely Christian once, but they have burried Christ beneath a mountain of doctrine, dogma, papal rulings, procedure, ritual, saints, demons and angels so thick that He can no longer be seen through the thicket of false teachings. Even the existance of a Pope is completly unbiblical. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

Read the book of James in the New Testament. Then you bigots will understand that you are saved by both faith and works.--RianB

== MAYBE? ==

Yes because of their willingness to follow Jesus Christ.

No when they don't express God's love to all--saying God hates someone because they live a homosexual lifestyle... but that's mainly just the ultra-conservative Catholics. [[User:NathanG|Nate]] 23:30, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

:Personally, I think Christians are losing their ability to hate, and this is a bad thing. Hate, unpleasant as it is, can be a tool for good. Rightous hate drives people to fight evil, to oppose sin. Hate of sin is one of the things that gives Christians the will to try to end it. Without hate, there can only be tolerance or acceptance. - [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

::Are you trying to be ironic!!??? That's excactly what Jesus wanted us to do! --[[User:Nabroon|Nabroon]] 10:07, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

Nate, that is an excellent point. Incidentally, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church does not condemn homosexuality, but merely indicates that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy. As a Progressive Catholic myself, I prefer to believe that a person's most powerful spiritual compass is his own conscience, and that doctrine is nothing more than a codification of established belief. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:36, 21 June 2008 (EDT)

A willingness to follow Jesus doesn't save one. Our willingness to do good works or say a set number of prayers or go to church doesn't save us. Jesus does by His death nd resurrection. It's ll about Christian. And saying hmosexuality is wrong can be expressing God's love to people. God makes it clear from His word that He doesn't approve of homosexuality. Telling them it's wrong and warning them of the consequences can be very loving. It's like pushing someone off the trin tracks when the train is coming. They might not always like it, but it's for there own good. Christians can certainly be unloving in there presentation; we shouldn't insult people or call them names. But we do need to stand up for what's right.

Offical Catholic doctrine might not condem homosexuality; but the Bible does. It mke it clear that it's wrong. The most powerful moral compass a person has is the word of God. He tells us what's right and what's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:40, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

I know I've had a debate with you before over placing stock in Biblical authority, but on what grounds do you believe what you do about what the Bible really is? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 00:48, 22 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the Bile is extremely reliable. There were 5600 New Testament manuscripts written within one hundred years of the original copies. That far exceeds anything that you would find in the ancient world. The New Testament is the most reliable document that we have from ancient times. In fact, the New Testament that we have today has been estimated to be 99.5% accurate compared to the original. And most of those difference are simple grammar errors. (Spelling errors, etc.) So I have extreme confidence in the Bible. Besides, we learn about Christ in the Bible. There is no where else to go. So believe contrary things about Jesus would be based on assumption, not our historical evidence. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I trust that copyists have been quite careful in their reproductions of the Bible, but the presence of spelling errors or grammar errors has nothing to do with whether or not we ought to place trust in the Bible as an historical source. I agree that historical evidence does support many claims made about the life of Christ, but this does not mean that it is exempt from the problems faced by any other historical documents. Most scholars agree that the Gospels were written many years after Christ actually lived, and that some of the Evangelists may have drawn on the work of the others in constructing their accounts. While this is not a reason to doubt general conclusions about the time in which Jesus lived, the places that he visited, the messages he preached, etc., it does not mean that we can treat the statements made as verbatim quotes. The dialogue in the New Testament is largely comprised of recollection, a notably unreliable function of the human psyche. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 23:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well that's an assumption. We have the Bible and have the words of Jesus Himself. Now, you can say that He didn't really say things like that or that the Bible is just a recollection of what Christ said as opposed to actual quotes, but that's a baseless claim. There is absolutely no evidence to support your claims that Jesus didn't really say that. You are making a tremendous assumption. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 11:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

There is, however, a great deal of evidence to support the belief of many scholars that the books of the New Testament were written several decades after Jesus lived. I don't doubt that the spirit of Jesus' teachings was faithfully preserved by whoever authored the Gospels, but I think that it is also "making a tremendous assumption" to claim that we must believe these are actual quotes of Jesus unless proven otherwise. Historians must always keep in mind the circumstances surrounding the authorship of a document when evaluating its content. Now, many will argue that this is not the case with the Bible because it was divinely inspired, but on what grounds can one make that claim? Because the Bible says so? That seems to be an incredibly circular argument. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 13:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Are there scholars that say that the New Testament was written long after the time of Christ on the Earth? Certainly. But there are also scholars which say that the New Testament was written not long after the time of Christ on the Earth. Scholars debate many things, so just to say, "many scholars claim..." doesn't prove anything, since I can give scholars that will argue the alternative. Ultimately, a very good case can be made for the New Testament that it was written within a generation of the time of Christ on the Earth, by the disciples who knew Him, and in the places that Jesus traveled and preached. And, even if that you would dispute that, it is a fact that the New Testament is the most reliably translated document of the ancient world. So to claim that Jesus really didn't say those things verbatim, well, you have no proof of that other than your assumption that He didn't. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Alright, assuming it was written shortly after the time of Christ, how does this guarantee that the quotes are authentic? I am not "making the assumption" that they aren't, I am just wondering how you are making the assumption that they are. Historians generally err on the side of skepticism, not unwarranted acceptance. --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:07, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Because the New Testament (and I suppose that were focusing on the Gospels in particular since we're talking about what Jesus said) were written by the people who knew Christ. His Apostles, like in the cases of Matthew and John, or those who were disciples who worked under the Apostles, like Mark and Luke. Because they traveled with Jesus and knew Him, they knew what He taught. Now, on top of that, you have to consider where the Gospels were written and who they were written to. They were written in the same places that Jesus had taught at. They were written in those same areas; Jerusalem, for examples. And they were written to the people who lived there, who had also been alive in the time of Christ. They had heard his teachings, too. So if the Apostles went around claiming that Jesus had said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), then it had better be true. Why? Because they were telling it to the same people who had already heard Jesus speak at previous times. They would know if the Apostles were lying or not, or if the teachings had stretched into fabrications. So these facts would necessitate that the Apostles quote Jesus accurately. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Two points: firstly, you are making the assumption that the Gospels were in fact written by the people that tradition purports wrote them. I will go ahead and invoke the opinion of "many scholars" once again (I can provide sources if you feel this debate has become too insubstantial) that the Gospels were not even written by those whose names are attached to them. Secondly, much of the doctrine that I have seen you invoke comes from other parts of the Bible, such as the letters of Paul. These do not even claim to be quotations of Jesus. How is it then that you base your vision of salvation on such a text? --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 14:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Please do provide sources. Now, the unanimous opinion of the early church was that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now, why would they lie? Three out of the four were minor individuals with no great reputation. If they wanted to lie about their authors, they would only do so if it was an attempt to improve their standing and bolster their reputation. So, if you were going to lie, you would attribute their authorship to more well-known individuals. Peter, Thomas, Judas, etc. That’s what later people tried to do. When the later “alleged” Gospels were written, they attributed their authorship to Peter, Thomas, Judas and other bigger figures. But that’s not what the earl Christians did. They attributed the Gospels to minor figures. The only logical reason behind this would be if they were really truly written by these people.

Are you saying that you don’t consider Paul’s work to be part of the New Testament? Luke, who wrote the Gospel by the same name, also wrote the book of Acts. And Acts details Paul’s early persecution of the church, his meeting Jesus and conversion, and his ministry. Throughout the book we see him working with Peter, James etc. Major figures in the church. Peter authenticates Paul’s writings as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). So Paul is a very legitimate figure to quote.

Oh, and just as a side-note, are you not going to further comment on the above "YES" section? I just ask because I keep looking at it and want to stop wasting time if we're not going to debate that anymore. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

"''his meeting Jesus''..." Where is this mentioned in the bible please? [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 10:26, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Paul's encounter with Christ and conversion on the way to Damascus is detailed in Acts 9. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:25, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Apostolic Succession==
Iread somewhere that the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are the only two that claim to be valid Christian Churches because they trace their history to one of the original apostles. Of that is true then they would be the only Christian churches, the others being formed by men who may be considered heretics of their original faiths [[User:Markr|Markr]] 11:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:Agreed. All Protestants were (still are?) considered heretics by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches. But I thought [[Martin Luther]] was originally an ordained Catholic priest. So I always believed that most protestants could easily and legitimately trace a successesion back to Christ, either through Luther or through another originally ordained Catholic priest who broke with the Church during the Protestant formation (not sure if formation is the right word here).--[[User:RickD|RickD]] 12:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::The Anglican and Methodist churches certainly claim apostolic succession, and I don't think it's widely disputed. I'm not sure about United Reformed or other protestant branches.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:13, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Luther rejected the Holy Orders as a sacrament and instead taught the equal priesthood of all believers. Apostolic Sucsession does not exist in Lutheranism because they rejected the Catholic doctrines of the priesthood. Anglicans also modified the form of ordination and destroyed their apostolic sucsession, although many Anglican priests and bishops today have recieved valid Sucsession from small churches like the Polish Catholic Church. Methodists do not claim the same sort of historical Succession as Catholics and Anglicans, and their ordination process also differs from the Catholic. Reformed and other Protestants have fundamentally different doctrines about the priesthood than Catholicism, and they do not even claim a historical Succession. [[User:AddisonDM]] 20 December 2008

==Turning the tables: What does the Catholic Church think of Pentecostals?==
('''An apology''') It was simply wrong of me to use such colorful terms as "bipolar", "schizophrenic", and "corrupt" in the way I did. It was thoughtless to do so and I should have been far more careful. This is a sensitive debate topic and comments like those could lead to conservapedia being less than friendly place to be--for anyone. Above all, I am sorry to have disrespected [[User:Jpatt]], a fellow Christian.

:As a non-Catholic (as far as my acceptance and confirmation of Sacraments go at least), I decided to find out what the Catholic Church thinks of Pentecostals. To do so, I read Father [http://www.collegevilleinstitute.org/kmdbio Killian McDonnell]’s April 2000 paper “The Pros and Cons of Dialogue With Roman Catholics”, ''[[Journal of Pentecostal Theology]]'', Volume 8, Issue 16, pages 90-101. In that paper Father McDonnell states that [[Pope John Paul II]] refers to Pentecostal Christians among others when he wrote that in "other Communities" "certain features of the Christian mystery have at times been more effectively emphasized" ([http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4247#iUt Quote from Paragraph 14 in Unum Sint (That They May Be One)]). On the other hand, Cardinal Ratzinger (now [[Pope Benedict XVI]]) has stated [http://www.ciai-s.net/Cardinal_Ratzinger.htm "Salvation only in the Catholic Church"]. I am puzzled and dismayed by this statement. At least on its surface, it seems to be a condemnation of those claiming to be saved, who are outside the Catholic Church and its sacramental system. Yet, I have read a paper by Catholic priest who engaged non-Catholic Pentecostals for 20 years, founded an institute on Catholic-Pentecostal dialoge, and wrote a peer-reviewed paper about it. All that along with a statement by Father McDonnell (written in his paper cited above) "For over 20 years the Catholic Church was the only international church to recognize the significance of the Pentecostals and to enter into formal dialogue with you" is positively promising. Then again, "Salvation only in the Catholic Church" seems less than promising. [[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:50, 10 December 2008 (EST)
::I agree. As a Catholic I was absolutely in love with John Paul II, he really made me proud to be Catholic. Benedict XVI on the other hand...while it may not be proper of me to question the decisions of the Vatican or God...I can't ignore my misgivings regarding him. I felt a palpable sense of love for all peoples and ideas from John Paul II (something I think should be central to any Christians mind set). Benedict XVI seems to focus more on what he perceives as the inadequacies of others. Suffice to say: I dearly miss John Paul II.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:42, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Conservapedia talk:American Government Fall 2012

2010-08-03T14:41:00Z

RianB:

Are Students allowed to add things where is says (Add more) or is that for Instructors only?--[[User:Davidkon|Davidkon]] 12:48, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

Is there any way I can just do this class as a casual thing. I'm interested and 16 years old, but I don't really care about getting a course completion certificate etc.--RianB

Conservapedia talk:American Government Fall 2012

2010-08-03T14:40:33Z

RianB:

Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?

2010-07-13T18:17:17Z

RianB: /* No */

{{debate}}

== Yes ==
Jesus, like all of us, was born at a time that best suited the plans of the Grand Architect. It is not God's fault we cannot yet understand those plans. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Everwill: you are an idiot. There is no god. Jesus was a man. Stop reading the bible: it is not the plan of a grand architect. We make our own world. You yourself were not born at a time which suited anyone. You were born at the time you were born, as was I, as was every one of us. No plan. No design. Get over it. It's OK, it's not scary.

bless you

Chris Larner

*Are you kidding. There were many children named Jesus born about that time and place. Just pick one and apply the prevailing myths of the day to his life a wallaaa instant cult.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:58, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

don't know how can I put a third choice here, so I put it here 
I don't think anyone is qualified to answer this except for God the father, He choose the time and place Jesus to be born in His plan from eternity. 
Same goes for the question "is xyz saved"? Or "How about those who never heard of Jesus"? Only God the father knows.([[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 00:12, 31 March 2010 (EDT))

== No ==

Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication. Don't you get me wrong, though. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:(I only want to know) [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

So if Jesus was born at the wrong time (4 B.C.), does this mean you think God made a mistake? --[[User:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]]

:I think that if we were to say "Jesus was born at the wrong time", we could immediately assume due to God's infallibility that our reasons for saying it are wrong. Taking the example above, there must be a reason why the era of mass communication was not chosen for His incarnation. We might never know it, though. This argument really belongs above under "Yes", but I wrote it as an answer here. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:: A point well made. As an atheist, I was using it as an example for the possible fallibility of God (Or Gods in general). Assuming his infallibility there must have been some reason why he chose to allow the rest of the world to live in ignorance until a sucession of violent empires spread (and continue to spread) his message of peace and love throughout the world. Rather than choosing to do it peacefully in an era of mass communication. I can't rationallise what this reason could possibly have been though... [[user:eyupdutch|eyupdutch]] 16 April 2007 09:38 (BST)

:::We could really use Jesus again right now... why only one visit? - BornAgainBrit

::::I'm not an expert on this, but isn't He supposed to return one more time? And as to the theology of "We could use Him now", isn't he "with" anyone/everyone who accepts Him into their hearts as their saviour? I guess there are also many stories in the Bible of the challenges to Faith and the obstacles in the Faithfuls' walk. But as to your basic sentiment, yeah, I don't really think there has ever been a time that wouldn't possibly have been made better by His incarnate presence. [[User:Human|Human]] 11:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Even when talking about Jesus, scripture is garbage. For example, the gospels of Matthew and Luke give two different lineages between David and Jesus (28 and 47, resp.) Also, they make reference to a census by Caesar Augustus around the time of Mary and Joseph's move to Bethlehem, but this never happened (There was a census by Qurinius, but it was in 6 AD). Also, in order for Jesus to be the messiah, he needs to be directly descended from David (Joseph's side), but if Mary was a virgin, how could Jesus fulfil the prophecy and actually be the messiah? Case in point, I'd be surprised if anything in scripture is accurate. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 22:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Jesus will return, but he will not return as the peaceful, forgiving person he did come as. He will come in justice. AdamNelson has never read the Bible accurately. Just because two accounts of Jesus say different things does not mean that they are contradictory. For example: I saw the fireman working on a fire. I saw the police man making an arrest near the gas station. If you were to then say that both were true, then it would seem that there was a contradiction. However many times in the Bible, you have to take into account that such instances in the Bible are complimentary, rather than contradictory. In my example, to show how those two instances could be complimentary, look: I saw the fireman working on working on a fire in the gas station, while the police officer arrested a suspect.
In Christ;
[[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 14:07, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Jesus Christ, 'The Computer Wizard" (and have you ever thought about getting a nomme de plume that isn't rubbish)will you get a Life? Stop reading the bible: it's balls. Jesus Christ will not come again. There is no god. Wake up. We make our own world. Start talking to people without the bible as an intermediary. Honestly!

best wishes

Chris Larner

Larner, I don't really understand why you're on this website. You're an atheistic bigot who is trying to force his beliefs, while not providing any evidence, on others. I don't get it. As an atheist, your life has no meaning so why should you be concerned about the lives of others?

==Prophetic Proof==
Israel is given 490 years.

Daniel 9:24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city-"
Daniel 9:25-26 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'

Israel's decreed period of time will be interupted at 483 years. 483 years after this Decree is given to Ezra by Artaxerxes, B.C.457. 27A.D. Jesus begins ministering to Israel. He is rejected by Israel. The promise of salvation is opened to gentile nations until...

Daniel 9:27 "He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven'.

Israel's final seven years occurs after a period of time marked by war and desolation and ending with a 7 year covenant with the final ruler of this current age. Daniels foretold Israel's demise almost 500 years before it happened in 70 A.D. as well as it's final 7 years that are yet to soon happen. The timing of the birth, death, resurrection, ascension, and second coming of Jesus fullfills the Word of God. Every book is in perfect concordance with this up to this point of time. This is only one example out of hundreds of revealed truths that some don't want you to know about that are contained within the Judeo-Christian Bible.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:49, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2010-07-13T18:04:20Z

RianB: /* No */

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Speaking from an economic stand point yes. And here's how you do it. You leagalize not just mary jane, but most, or all drugs. You then take it and tax the holy hell out of it. you can even raise the prices depending on the toxicity of the drug. This is something that will actually raise revenue, unlike everything else the government does to try and make money. Because lets face it, the government is just as bad as the people who pay off credit cards with credit cards. I would not be surprised to hear "I didn't know what to do with the money, so I ate it" from the treasury. mattfelton

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20965]

::It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the "friendliest" people I know. [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)
:you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:: Why not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:::May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS ''Nimitz'', prompting the Navy to institute a "zero tolerance" policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at "point blank" range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (''physically'' - the ''mental'' trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the "shooter" - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which ''caused'' the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered ''as a result'' of the crash. Just to clarify. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)

Yes, I think it should be legalized for a few reasons. Just watch the film: Traffic.

I wrote a 5 page debate for this in health class. Here it is:

Marijuana is a dangerous illegal drug that comes from the Indian hemp plant Cannabis. It is the most widely used of all illicit drugs, giving off the false guise that it is not as dangerous as it truly is. It contains over 420 different chemicals, including d-alpha-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). As with other mood-altering drugs, marijuana raises the levels of dopamine in the brain. After the drug’s effects wear off, the user is left craving more. In the year 1999 alone, over 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment with marijuana as their primary drug. If legalization occurred, the number of users would grow exponentially, and we, as future taxpayers, would be forced to support their immoral habits. Along with mental addiction, marijuana has many adverse effects including: hallucinations, paranoia, impaired short-term memory and reaction time, difficulty with concentration and coordination, loss of motivation, risk of infertility, coughing, heart and lung damage, increased risk of lung cancer, and a weakened immune system just to name a few. It is the job of the US government to protect its citizens from harm, legalizing marijuana would do the exact opposite.
I already know what one of your major arguments is going to be: marijuana should be legal because alcohol and tobacco are legal and they cause many more deaths. However, there are some serious flaws in this argument. For one, because marijuana is illegal, it has been much more difficult for scientists to conduct research on the long-term effects of using the drug- while they have been doing controlled studies on alcohol and tobacco for decades. The facts are that marijuana is a stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogen- so it exhibits similar traits to both of these substances and many others. Tobacco, as we know, is one of the major causes for lung cancer is the US. Marijuana contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarettes, along with the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and for longer than cigarette smokers. Marijuana increases the heart rate of the user by 20-100 percent and it is 4.8 times more likely that the user will have a heart attack in the first hour after smoking. As a hallucinogen and depressant, marijuana is extremely dangerous for drivers. Marijuana impairs judgment, interferes with depth perception, and slows reflexes. Also, while alcohol and its effects are usually eradicated relatively quickly, marijuana can have effects on the user for days after using and can be detected in their system after up to 90 days. Now, think about it, if marijuana were made legal, people in public transportation, such as school bus drivers, would be able to get high on weekends, and then drive the American youth in the week. That’s not a risk I think any of us are willing to take. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are legal, but the US government is doing everything in their power to inform their citizens not to use these drugs. You can’t watch TV for a half hour without seeing a commercial about the harmful effects of cigarettes or the .08 BAC for alcohol. However, the government trying to illegalize these substances would result in a giant fiasco for it is much harder to take something away from the population that they’ve had forever, than it would be to keep prohibition (which is what the US government is successfully doing with marijuana at the present.
In addition to the harmful effects of marijuana alone, it is commonly mixed with other drugs and substances which increase the risks exponentially. It is a gateway drug that increases the users risk to move onto even worse drugs. An individual who uses marijuana is 17 times more likely to use cocaine than someone who has never used marijuana. In Holland, where, as most of you know, marijuana is legal, the drug problem has grown substantially. Not only is there the expected increase in marijuana users since the drug is legal, but heroin addiction levels have tripled as well. The European drug model is not successful and not the way the US should go. So wouldn’t this allow us to infer that legalizing marijuana would only increase the war on drugs, except against different drugs?
Now is the issue of medical marijuana, of which I am sure you will try to praise for its numerous health benefits and how it is a medical panacea. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine conducted a study to assess these so called healthful benefits. They concluded that smoked marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications that are currently available. Marijuana weakens the immune system, so giving it to patients with HIV/ AIDS and compromised immune systems would actually speed the progression of the disease. Recent studies by the Mayo Clinic show that THC is actually less effective than standard treatments in helping patients regain lost appetites. Besides all the proven information that THC is not the most effective way to treat many diseases, a synthetic version of the drug, Marinol already exists. Medical marijuana already exists in a pill form and has been legal since 1985. It is much more effective than smoked marijuana at treating nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; even though there are other effective medications to treat all three of these. So doesn’t it seem a little strange that people are still pushing so hard for the legalization of medical marijuana even though it already exists. Clearly it is just a guise to legalize all forms of marijuana for recreational use. Legalization activists have turned the argument from decriminalization to a way to help those with incurable diseases. Really?! The argument for medical marijuana is a load of crap, developed by the extreme narcissists who plague this country and only care about their own bodily pleasures, rather than the good of the nation as a whole.
Contrary to popular belief, marijuana use is not as widespread as many activists would like you to believe. Only 1 in 7 10th graders are current marijuana users and that number has been dropping steadily. Legalizing marijuana would send a bad message to most high-schoolers: If the government thinks it should be legal, than it clearly cannot be doing too much harm to me. Drugs users and addicts, especially young users would shoot up. The argument of free will is wholly wrong here as well. Marijuana is addictive. Addictions cause the user to develop a mental craving and need for the drug. They no longer have the free will to make that choice as their body needs the drug.
The War on Drugs has been an ongoing battle against harmful illicit drugs for decades now. Many men have lost their lives fighting to protect others for what they believed in. Legalizing marijuana would mean they would have died in vain. Yes, billions of dollars have been spent, but the results shouldn’t be measured by money spent but rather the thousands of American Youth who have been saved from the horrors of drugs. The war on drugs is an ongoing struggle that will never be completely 100% solved. However, just like any other social issue, the struggle should not be abandoned. We wouldn’t ever give up on reducing poverty or increasing education just because we have eliminated all of the problems. It simply isn’t plausible.
The majority of drug users seek treatment, not ending up in jail. Only 5 percent of inmates in federal prisons are there simply for possession. Crime rates would actually increase and jails would fill more if marijuana was legalized. This is because crime and drug use go hand-in-hand and with US government regulation and taxation, marijuana prices would increase. Also six times more homicides are committed by people under the influence. While possession charges for marijuana would be gone, the influx of new users would cause more violence related charges.

You can try to refute this but I am sure that my position is correct.

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&Business=true]] ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:::: Why the distinction between "other people" and "the user"? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you "believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process". I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana ''does'' harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming ''himself'' causes distress for those that care for them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This is more of a control issue verses if it is bad or good. The war on drugs first started as a discimination practice against the Mexicans. When you live in a FREE country you should be able to do what you want in your own home. We are not talking about getting high and going to work. Alcohol and tobacco is not done there either. Just in the privacy of your home. Smoking is already banned in California if you live in an apartment. If you pay rent I still consider this to be your home. Do you think people actually stopped? You should arrest those criminals? And if you want to ban mind altering substance, kiss cheese good bye because it acts like morphine on the brain. Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing and leave the Government out of it. They control enough already. It is all about control and nothing to do with the substance. After all it is a natural product and not a man made concotion. Other drugs will crop up in its place if it is too scarce. Why do you think Meth came around? Proper law enforcement should be substituted with education on the effects. Education not propoganda. I did read where there is one entire northern Califorian county that exclusively relies on Marijuana for its economy.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

"Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing." I know somebody who is always telling me we should decriminalize marijuana, but she has thus far been unable to effectively articulate what the heck the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Can you help me out? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:26, 5 December 2009 (EST)

If you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it. Decrimimalization is while it is still illegal, therefore can't be regulated and taxed, the crime carries no penalty.

Ah, okay. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Assuming that the government has, at any time, the authority to legalize, tax, and regulate the stuff anyway, why not just legalize, and NOT tax or regulate. That way those people who obey the law as a matter of conscience aren't disadvantaged. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 5 December 2009 (EST)