Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

File:Conservapedia Logo sm.png

2007-04-16T02:02:35Z

Ribbix:

I own all rights to this and it is mine.

File:Conservapedia Logo.png

2007-04-16T02:02:18Z

Ribbix:

I own all rights to this and it is mine.

Wii

2007-04-15T22:06:23Z

Ribbix:

[[Image:Wii.png|thumb|right|200px|Click for a high resolution view.]]
A games console launched in 2006 by [[Nintendo]]. Its major selling point is the inclusion of a motion sensitive controller called a "Wiimote". Popular games for Wii include [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]] and [[Wii Sports]].

{{stub}}

[[Category:Games]]

Wii

2007-04-15T22:06:08Z

Ribbix:

[[Image:Wii.png|thumb|right|250px|Click for a high resolution view.]]
A games console launched in 2006 by [[Nintendo]]. Its major selling point is the inclusion of a motion sensitive controller called a "Wiimote". Popular games for Wii include [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]] and [[Wii Sports]].

{{stub}}

[[Category:Games]]

Wii

2007-04-15T22:05:54Z

Ribbix: Added image.

[[Image:Wii.png|thumb|right|450px|Click for a high resolution view.]]
A games console launched in 2006 by [[Nintendo]]. Its major selling point is the inclusion of a motion sensitive controller called a "Wiimote". Popular games for Wii include [[The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess]] and [[Wii Sports]].

{{stub}}

[[Category:Games]]

File:Wii.png

2007-04-15T22:05:06Z

Ribbix:

Coffee

2007-04-15T22:02:56Z

Ribbix: In-N-Out

Domesticated in [[Ethiopia]] in pre-biblical times, '''coffee''' is a [[bootany|plant]], the [[roasting|roasted]] and grinding beans of which may be used to make a stimulating, [[caffeine]]-containing, beverage.

Coffee reached [[Europe]] in the 17th century AD, when traders from the East brought it to Venice. Soon afterwards, coffeehouses began to spring up across Europe. Coffee was most widely embraced in England over the next two centuries. [http://www.realcoffee.co.uk/Article.asp?Cat=history&page=3] Today, [[Brazil]] exports more coffee than any other nation. [http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/coffee-cn.htm]

== Tim Horton's ==
Tim Horton's is the most popular coffee shop in Canada. In 1995 Tim Horton's allowed Wendy's International to purchase its operations, allowing the Canadian Coffee chain greater access to the United States. Currently there are over 300 stores in the United States, 2637 stores in Canada, and one at Kandahar Airfield in Afghanistan [http://www.timhortons.com/en/about/aboutus_history.html]. American operations are "found in Michigan, Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York"; expansion is planned in these core markets.
===Double Double===
A '''double double''' is a cup of coffee containing two cream and two sugar; '''regular''' means one of each, and black indicates that the coffee is sans both. It is also a double [[Cheeseburger|cheeseburger]] that you can order at [[In-N-Out]].

[[category:food and drink]]

File talk:IMG 0110.JPG

2007-04-15T21:49:51Z

Ribbix: New page: What is this? ~~~~

What is this? [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 17:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

File:Hubble 01.jpg

2007-04-15T21:14:51Z

Ribbix:

Taken from [http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap021124.html]. All of NASAs work is in the public domain.

File:Conservapedia Logo sm.png

2007-04-15T21:03:53Z

Ribbix:

Billion

2007-04-15T20:29:16Z

Ribbix:

A '''billion''' is exactly [[One|one]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]], 1,000,000,000, or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

In [[Europe]] it is thought to be a million million (1012), however the popularity of this usage is declining.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:22:49Z

Ribbix:

A '''billion''' is exactly [[One|one]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]], 1,000,000,000, or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:22:40Z

Ribbix:

A '''Billion''' is exactly [[One|one]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]], 1,000,000,000, or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:22:30Z

Ribbix:

A '''Billion''' is exactly [[One]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]], 1,000,000,000, or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:22:13Z

Ribbix:

A '''Billion''' is exactly [[One]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]], <math>1,000,000,000</math>, or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:21:14Z

Ribbix:

[[One]] [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]] or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:20:45Z

Ribbix:

A [[Thousand|thousand]] [[Million|million]] or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Billion

2007-04-15T18:19:17Z

Ribbix: New page: A thousand million or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

A thousand million or <math>1.0*10^9</math>.

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-04-15T06:01:52Z

Ribbix: /* Spell-checker */

==Only for Americans?==

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here.
Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--[[User:Catherine Morland|Catherine Morland]] 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spell-checker==

I don't think ''everyone'' has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:There are spell checkers for [http://www.iespell.com/ Explorer], [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ Opera], and [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Firefox/Mozilla]. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:Firefox 2.0 comes with a built-in spelling checker and it should be changed to read that you should just update Firefox to the latest version to get a spelling checker. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 02:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users ([[wiki-gnome]]s) can [[search]] for articles containing the misspelled words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wikis as sources ==

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==''Always'' use AD and BC?==
That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
am I expected to go back in and edit it to read
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?
I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

:In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Date format ==

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form <nowiki>[[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]]</nowiki> and the software ''should'' display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:...no. The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&action=history this article's history]. Go check it out, it works. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dates this] config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are ''only'' for this, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use correct spelling as often as possible. ==

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== On plurals in titles ==

There seem to be a large number of articles where the text of the article is in the plural form of the word. [[Arteries]], [[Bills of credit]], [[Biofuels]], [[Catholics]], etc... The wiki software makes it easy to work with singular form [[biofuel]]s is written as <nowiki>[[biofuel]]s</nowiki> (do realize that at the time of this writing, there is no biofuel article). Shouldn't this be rectified and part of the manual of style to write the article about the singular form rather than the plural form? It would simplify many redirects. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:You mean the ''title'' of the article, but yes, I agree entirely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of titles ==

In line with the comments above about plurals in titles, I believe that we should have titles in lowercase (except for proper nouns, of course). At the moment, if we want to link to an article about biblical parables, we have to include the link as <nowiki>[[Biblical Parables|biblical parables]], where we should be able to just link to [[biblical parables]].</nowiki> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== What about punctuation? ==

Should we be using "American" punctuation? For example, usually a comma or period goes within quotes in American usage, and outside of quotes in British usage. Albeit, people's grammar in on-line contexts is often deplorable, and Conservapedia is no exception. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*One would suppose either is correct, depending on where the contributor is from. Since we have dropped the restriction about using only American-English, how would enforcing American punctuation work? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article subjects==

I noticed that throughout the website on shorter articles, the subject of the article is not written in bold text upon first mention. I suggest adding this to the Manual of Style as this makes the article slightly easier to understand. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thats probably laziness on the author's(my) part. I'll stand behind it though.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

2007-04-15T06:01:03Z

Ribbix: /* Spell-checker */

==Only for Americans?==

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here.
Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--[[User:Catherine Morland|Catherine Morland]] 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Spell-checker==

I don't think ''everyone'' has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:There are spell checkers for [http://www.iespell.com/ Explorer], [http://www.opera.com/support/tutorials/opera/spellcheck/ Opera], and [http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/ Firefox/Mozilla]. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users ([[wiki-gnome]]s) can [[search]] for articles containing the misspelt words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Firefox 2.0 comes with a built-in spelling checker and it should be changed to read that you should just update Firefox to the latest version to get a spelling checker.

== Wikis as sources ==

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

==''Always'' use AD and BC?==
That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
am I expected to go back in and edit it to read
:[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?
I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

:In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fine. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Date format ==

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form <nowiki>[[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]]</nowiki> and the software ''should'' display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Preferences] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:...no. The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&action=history this article's history]. Go check it out, it works. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_dates this] config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are ''only'' for this, however. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use correct spelling as often as possible. ==

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== On plurals in titles ==

There seem to be a large number of articles where the text of the article is in the plural form of the word. [[Arteries]], [[Bills of credit]], [[Biofuels]], [[Catholics]], etc... The wiki software makes it easy to work with singular form [[biofuel]]s is written as <nowiki>[[biofuel]]s</nowiki> (do realize that at the time of this writing, there is no biofuel article). Shouldn't this be rectified and part of the manual of style to write the article about the singular form rather than the plural form? It would simplify many redirects. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:You mean the ''title'' of the article, but yes, I agree entirely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Capitalisation of titles ==

In line with the comments above about plurals in titles, I believe that we should have titles in lowercase (except for proper nouns, of course). At the moment, if we want to link to an article about biblical parables, we have to include the link as <nowiki>[[Biblical Parables|biblical parables]], where we should be able to just link to [[biblical parables]].</nowiki> [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== What about punctuation? ==

Should we be using "American" punctuation? For example, usually a comma or period goes within quotes in American usage, and outside of quotes in British usage. Albeit, people's grammar in on-line contexts is often deplorable, and Conservapedia is no exception. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*One would suppose either is correct, depending on where the contributor is from. Since we have dropped the restriction about using only American-English, how would enforcing American punctuation work? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Article subjects==

I noticed that throughout the website on shorter articles, the subject of the article is not written in bold text upon first mention. I suggest adding this to the Manual of Style as this makes the article slightly easier to understand. [[User:Scriabin|Scriabin]] 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Thats probably laziness on the author's(my) part. I'll stand behind it though.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Whale

2007-04-15T05:44:24Z

Ribbix: /* Whales in literature */

[[Image:800px-Baleen Whale Physical Characteristics svg.png|right|thumb|400px]]
'''Whale''' is a marine mammals, the [[Cetacea|Cetaceans]].

Living whales are seperated into the toothed whales (which includes [[dolphin]]s, [[porpoise]]s, [[narwhal]]s, [[beaked whale]]s and [[sperm whale]]s) and the whalebone whales; those (mostly very large) cetaceans which have teeth replaced by baleen (whalebone) to filter small prey from the water, which are what people generally think of when the word whale is used. The whalebone whales include the rorquals - the [[blue whale]], fin whale, sei whale, Bryde's whale, [[minke whale]], [[grey whale]]; the [[humpback whale]]; and the various [[right whale]]s.

Although whales are famed for the massive size reached by some species, such as the blue whale (the largest animal to ever live), others are relatively small like the pygmy right whale which grows to about 20 feet <ref> [http://www.acsonline.org/factpack/PygmyRightWhale.htm]American Cetacean Society website</ref>. Though whales have many traits in common with fish (including fins and tails) they are in fact [[mammal|mammals]] and accordingly breath air and lactate. Whales have a number of remarkable [[adaptation|adaptations]] including:

* they decide when to breathe, rather than breathing unconsciously

* they sleep 8 hours a day, yet need to be conscious to breathe

* they can communicate with each other by making remarkably loud noises

* these extraordinary noises can travel for miles under water

* the females nurse their calves while swimming underwater

* the males have a unique cooling system for their internal reproductive organs

* some have two blow-holes, but others only have one

* the blow-holes pass air above water, yet resist intense pressure underwater

* they have massive brains, much larger than the brains of other mammals

* Whales along with Humans and horses are some of the few mammal species that do not possess baculum

== Evolution and taxonomy ==
The question of how whales and their relatives could have evolved from terrestrial [[mammal|mammals]] has taxed evolutionary biologists since [[Darwin|Darwin's]] suggestion that they may have evolved from ancient bears. In more recent times molecular and fossil evidence has combined to suggest that modern whales and their relatives arose from ancient [[Artiodactyla|artiodactyls]] (even-toed ungulates) with the closest living relative of all whales being hippos<ref>[http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/41080/molecular_clock_divergence_estimates_and_the_fossil_record_of_cetartiodactyla/index.html] Theodore, JM (2004) Molecular Clock Divergence Estimates And The Fossil Record Of Cetartiodactyla The Journal Of Paleontology 78:39-44</ref>. This kinship has been termed the whippo hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists estimate the last ancestor of whales and hippos lived about 25 million years ago <ref> [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml] UCLA Berkley Understanding Evolution for Teachers website</ref>, which is contrast with the [[Young earth creationism|young earth creationist]] position that that whales were [[creation|created]] about 6000 years ago when [[God]] created the [[earth]]. Other creationists are not convinced that the available fossil evidence supports the [[Theory of evolution|evolutionary view]] but make no reference to the corroborating molecular evidence. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/whale.asp</ref>
<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/whale.asp</ref>

== Whales in the Bible ==

The great fish that swallowed [[Jonah]],
<blockquote>
''Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.'' Jonah 1:17
</blockquote>
is generally regarded as being a whale (which were historically classified as fishes) although [[Great white shark]]s are also present in the [[Mediterranean Sea]], offering an alternative swallower that is a true fish.

== Whales in literature ==

Arguably the most famous book about whales is [[Herman Melville]]'s ''[[Moby-Dick|Moby Dick]]'', about sperm-whaling.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Marine mammals]]

File:Conservapedia Logo.png

2007-04-15T05:16:40Z

Ribbix:

Talk:The

2007-04-14T22:34:24Z

Ribbix:

Does this article really need to exist? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT) 
Yes, every article should exist. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 18:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The

2007-04-14T22:34:16Z

Ribbix:

Does this article really need to exist? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:21, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes, every article should exist. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 18:34, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Brittle

2007-04-14T18:30:49Z

Ribbix:

A '''brittle''' [[mineral]] is easily broken into a [[powder]] by cutting or hammering.<ref>Chesterman, Charles W. ''The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Rocks and Minerals'', Alfred A. Knopf: New York (1987)</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Velocity

2007-04-14T18:24:50Z

Ribbix:

The '''velocity''' of an object is the rate of change of its [[position]]. If the position of an object is some [[function]] of [[time]], then the velocity is the [[derivative]] of that function:

:<math>v(t)={\mathrm{d}x \over \mathrm{d}t}</math>

where ''x'' is the position and ''v'' is the velocity. The velocity is a [[vector]], and its length or absolute value is called the ''speed''. The velocity has dimensions of length / time, and may thus be expressed in meter per second (in scientific usage). In daily life, miles per hour and kilometers per hour are more common units.

[[Category:Physics]]

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-04-14T17:59:40Z

Ribbix: /* No */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:<nowiki>***</nowiki>Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
It isn't a sin because God made you that way. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-04-14T17:58:13Z

Ribbix: /* No */

Debate:Does single sex schooling promote homosexuality?

2007-04-14T17:57:54Z

Ribbix: /* No */

==Yes==
Well of course. People have a basic need for intimacy and do not loose this need because the socially accepted partners in this intimacy are unavailable.

==No==

No, single sex schooling doesn't promote homesexuality. '''Home schooling''' promotes homesexuality. --[[User:Frenchfries|Frenchfries]] 08:37, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

How does home schooling promote homosexuality? -Lauren

Homosexuality is a sin. Sin in an innate aspect of the human condition because Eve ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil after God put it there and told here specifically not to eat that fruit. Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it.

:Hmmm... What about Homosexual animals (it does happen!)? Were they told not to do it as well?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 18:50, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

<<...Therefore Homosexuality only occurs when people are told not to do it...>>

Only then? So, why do you (Global you, aimed at Christian Conservatives...) keep telling people not to do it? If you just stop telling people not to do it, it will stop happening, Yes?

Citizzzen

:Only if those animals are told not to do it.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

That is exactly correct.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:39, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Single sex schooling, you aren't serious. If you told me that liberal teaching promotes homosexuality, I would have to say hell yes it does. Not only does it promote but encourage such thoughts. Animals do it? WTF? So it is ok for humans? Boy, America is so messed up.*** Thousands upon thousands of years, homosexuals were looked at as deranged individuals. Now, our generation is so smart, smirk. Eventually, the homosexual movement will die out without reproduction. But at the same time, we must not let our youth be indoctrinated to this evil.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:53, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
:***Humans are animals. [[User:Ribbix|Ribbix]] 13:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:You should know that you just argued in favour of evolution. Not only that, but you have defied reason, as there is no proof that homosexuality is genetic. Fortunately for us, our generation is so smart, that eventually the conservative movement will die out without reproduction. Nobody wants to marry a bigot. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 23:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Let me be clear, I never endorsed the notion that homosexuality is genetic nor evolution is responsible. If you read into what I wrote, this is a learned lifestyle. At 7 years old, the age of reason, you don't suddenly say- I'm gay, it is learned. Break the education factor, you are left with non reproducing lifestyle. Slowly fading away is not evolution but the result of no reproduction. Let me say this also, I do not proclaim to the absolute notion that stopping indoctrinating youth will ever happen. Thereby homosexuality will continue. As long as these people have rights, the promotion continues. As long as they are allowed to adopt children, the indoctrination continues. Just as it survived underground since times inception from our fall into sin, it will always be with us.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I'd be interested to see a citation from where you're getting "you don't just decide that you're gay at 7 years old", because Dateline says different. I'll go pull up some citations of kids outing themselves as "gay" at extremely young ages. On a side note, jp, do you believe that homosexuality is a choice? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:00, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Dateline, please. If they are outing themselves it is from learning it. Conservatives understand that homosexuality is a sin against God. Bigotry will always be with us as well. Conservatives are not bigoted because they dislike homosexuality. The gay movement is not a protected civil right. We love the sinner, we hate the sin. We love the gay person, we hate the gay agenda. The only bigotry displayed is against the conservative view.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:05, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Way to completely change the subject and go on a rant. Anyways, [http://www.poststar.com/articles/2007/04/05/ae/today/c2a3b8536c55f8c2852572b4000d0511.txt here] is one I pulled up. 3 straight children, 1 bi.
:::::: You can find articles all day long that prove your views are just. Let me tell you there are plenty of other websites where your view is accepted. Why don't you post on a liberal website. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:23, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. And you're still dodging the question, does SSS promote homosexuality? You never answered the question. I said no; I think you probably would say "yes"? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:29, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: Chong, figure it out, what does learned mean?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:54, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::: My views are accepted here as well; we don't block over content disputes. Not from what I read about you. http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Abuse#ACLU_and_Evolution --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:Speaking from personal experience, I can safely say that it's not because it's accepted that it exists. I grew up very conservative, and I always had issues with homosexuality. Of course, because I thought it was wrong I hated myself for looking at other males. Since that time I've found myself, and am a much better person. The mind, like a book, works best when open. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Date of creation

2007-04-14T17:24:55Z

Ribbix:

Calculating the '''date of creation''' has exercised many minds for hundreds of years.

== Basis of calculation ==

The Bible contains [[chronogenealogies]] from Adam to Abraham, listing the age at which each person in the genealogy gave birth to the next person in the list, thus allowing by simple addition a determination of how many years passed between [[creation story|creation]] and Abraham. There are other chronological indications also, allowing that calculation to be extended into the times of the kings, when the dates can be correlated with other events in history for which the absolute date is known. By this means, in theory, one can calculate the date of creation.

There are, however, some uncertainties in this. For example, Genesis lists the age of Terah when the first of his sons was born, but was Abraham this son, or the second or third son?
Different researchers have proposed different answers to this and similar problems, but none of these problems change the result by a very significant amount.

An objection that has often been raised is whether the chronogenealogies were ''intended'' to be used this way, or whether, for example, generations have been missed.
[[Henry Morris]], a pioneer of modern creationism, allowed for the possibility of gaps in the genealogies, but claimed that it was unreasonable to stretch the date back further than about 10,000 B.C.
In more recent times, however, creationists have concluded that there is no reason to think that there are gaps, and this view is supported by the consensus of the experts, according to [[James Barr]], then regius professor of Hebrew at [[Oxford University]], and not a young-Earth creationist (he also wrote a book attacking [[biblical inerrancy]]), who wrote in 1984: "… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: … the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606/ Biblical chronogenealogies], by Jonathan Sarfati.</ref>

Old-earth creationists do not accept this date, proposing that there may be gaps in the genealogies.<ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/other_papers/primeval_chronology.shtml Are There Gaps in the Biblical Genealogies?], by William Henry Green.</ref>

== Calculated dates ==

The best known date of creation is the one calculated by Archbishop [[James Ussher]] in the 17th century - namely 6:00 p.m. Saturday, [[October 22]], [[4004]] BC.<ref>The Annals of the World, by James Ussher.</ref> However, only the year was based on the Biblical ages; the date and time were based on other considerations. Sir [[Isaac Newton]] defended Ussher's date. Another to calculate the date of creation was [[Johannes Kepler]], who worked it out to be 3992 B.C.

But such calculations in fact date from at least the Middle Ages, and offer a range of dates from around 5000 to 4000 BC. Judaic tradition (to which the Old Testament of course belongs) reckons the date of creation at 3760 BC. Another calculation, beginning with the date of the destruction of Jerusalem known from secular history and working backwards, arrives at 4163 BC. <ref> http://web.newsguy.com/rubyredinger/age.html Biblical age of the Earth</ref>

Based mainly on geological dating methods, however, secular scientific research generally dates the formation of the Earth to around 4.5 billion (4.5 * 109) years ago.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth</ref>

== Notes ==
<references />

[[Category:Creationism]]

Fox News Channel

2007-04-14T17:18:19Z

Ribbix: /* Fox Versus The Leftist View */

[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]
The '''Fox News Channel''' is a US cable and satellite news channel. It is part of the Fox Television Stations Group, a subsidiary of Australian-born media mogul [[Rupert Murdoch]]'s [[News Corporation]]. Roger Ailes was named Chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group on August 15, 2005.

Fox News was started in 1996 by Murdoch and Roger Ailes. The two of them perceived a need for a news organization that offered more balanced reporting, one where the facts from all sides would be presented. Main-stream media "Political Correctness" was banished, with the news anchors calling terrorists, what they were (terrorists), instead of referring to them as "militants". It seems to have paid off. As of February, 2007, polls show that over 20% of Americans say their main source of news is the Fox News Channel.

While Fox News claims to be "Fair & Balanced", a claim which it backs up by having bipartisan shows like Hannity and Colmes, and daily guest pundits from all sides of the political spectrum, it is widely understood to be more sympathetic to conservative and Christian views. Despite this, Fox News characterizes itself as reporting the news in an unbiased manner and then allowing the viewer to decide; "We Report, You Decide" is another of their on-air slogans.

Fox News has dominated the ratings of other cable news shows.[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center] Launched by media tycoon Rupert Murdoch and former political consultant Roger Ailes as a refuge for viewers fed up with real or perceived liberal bias elsewhere in the media, Fox is the undisputed ratings champion of cable news. It's been trouncing CNN, MSNBC and CNBC for years, and it sometimes draws a fatter audience share than all its competitors combined. Fox News prides itself in its motto: "News, Fair and Balanced. We Report, You Decide".

The far-left isn't happy about that slogan. Even before an angry Bill Clinton exploded at "Fox News Sunday" anchor Chris Wallace in September of 2006, accusing him of "a nice little conservative hit job" after getting lightly pressed (for Wallace) about his record on fighting Al Qaeda, Democratic politicos and advocates have relentlessly attacked the cable network, accusing it of being a Republican propaganda mill. Al Gore has likened Fox to a right-wing "fifth column." Leftist groups, including [[MoveOn.org]], funded the semi-documentary "Outfoxed," which purports to expose the channel's nefarious Republican agenda, and petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to ban Fox's use of its famous "Fair and Balanced" slogan as deceptive advertising. It was denied.

A recent comprehensive study by [[UCLA]] political scientist Tim Groseclose and University of Missouri-Columbia economics professor Jeffrey Milyo found Brit Hume's "Special Report" — Fox's most straightforward news show — more centrist than any of the three major networks' evening newscasts, all of which leaned left. [http://rcp.missouri.edu/articles/milyo_media.html] The program is a model of smart news television.

And although it's true that the network's opinion shows (as opposed to its news shows) are, as they're supposed to be, frequently bombastic and opinionated, it's equally true that Fox's biggest super-star, Bill O'Reilly, is not a mainstream Republican. He regularly charges the oil companies with price-gouging and attacks big business for squashing the little guy. Who can say what host Greta Van Susteren's politics are? She mostly covers the lurid murder-of-the-day stories. Geraldo Rivera has always been Liberal on most issues, with the exception of being a strong supporter of the military and stiff penalties for perverts.

Liberal commentators go in and out of the Fox studios all over America, every day — some of them, like host Alan Colmes and news analyst Marvin Kalb, and Eleanor Clift affiliated with the channel. There's no doubt, of course, that Fox News is more conservative than CBS, ABC, NBC or CNN. But, after all, that was its founding mission.

== Anti-Elitist ==

Fox's real ethos is not Republican but anti-elitist — a major reason it connects with so many Americans and annoys so many coastal elites. "There's a whole country that elitists will never acknowledge," Ailes once observed. "What people resent deeply out there are those in the 'blue states' thinking they're smarter." This anti-elitism shows itself in Fox's pro-U.S. stance in covering the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and its broadcasters' use of terms such as "terrorist" instead of the PC "militant" to refer to … well, terrorists. Since the Vietnam War era, mainstream journalists have tended to see such blunt language and side-taking as unsophisticated, a betrayal of journalistic objectivity, or perhaps their own ingrained biases against government in general.

Another aspect of Fox's anti-elitism: Christians, far from being seen as lunatics or extremists — as too often is the case in the mainstream media — actually get some respect. "We regularly have on the Rev. Franklin Graham, Dr. James Dobson and other religious leaders, just as we put on Pat Ireland and Eleanor Clift," Ailes said, continuing, ''"Most Americans believe in God and have that as their foundation in life. So why shouldn't we have as guests people that they like, respect and want to hear from?" '' Ailes said he didn't get "too worked up" by a Pew Foundation study that showed that Fox has more Republican viewers than CNN, CNBC or MSNBC and that his reporters and anchors insert their opinions into stories far more than competitors do. Numbers might have something to do with it: Fox is beating the combined audience of the other three. But Ailes dismissed Pew as a "liberal lobbying organization." He said, "Most polls today are not taken to provide information to the public but to get press for the organization taking the polls. I took a poll of Pew, and 98% of my organization found that they were biased", Ailes said with a wink. [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

In response, Project director Tom Rosenstiel said the study "was not a poll. It was a content analysis designed by a four-university research team and executed at the University of Alabama." ''One plus for Fox, he said, was that researchers found Fox News stories were more forthcoming about sourcing than their cable rivals.'' [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

== Fox Versus The Leftist View ==

"What really frustrates liberals about Fox, though, is simply that, along with talk radio and conservative blogs, it has helped shatter the left's near-monopoly on news and information. Fox's opinion-driven programming gives conservatives and liberals a chance to get a fair hearing for their ideas. But Democratic politicians and activists who go on Fox also must defend their views, often against tough questioning, something that happens less often on the networks, where most journalists are left-of-center, survey after survey has shown", said columnist Brian Anderson. "Even more significant, Fox came on the scene a decade ago as a professional news organization that could define and report news as something different from what the elite consensus says it is. To take one of many examples, the corruption of the United Nations' oil-for-food initiative in Iraq, initially downplayed by the mainstream media because of their sympathy for internationalism, was uncovered — deemed newsworthy — on Fox."

All this wouldn't matter if Fox News wasn't so influential. But it is. According to the Pew Research Center, more than 20% of Americans now claim to get news from it, and lots of them (37%) are Democrats or independents. The network's success has also sparked a "Fox effect," leading some competitors to become more open to right-of-center opinions: MSNBC's "Scarborough Country," hosted by former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough, is a prime example. Until a few years ago, Democrats never had to deal with all these mediatized conservatives. [http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-anderson4oct04,0,2195035.story?coll=la-opinion-center]

Ailes said Fox News has no agenda. His charge to his reporters and anchors is simple: "If you make a mistake, get on the air as fast as you can and admit it. ... Do your homework. Make sure you reach out to a point of view you don't agree with to be sure you have some balance in your piece, because journalists, despite the public perception, are not empty-headed fools. They actually come to the job with some ideas and biases." When asked whether the media have a "conscious bias," Ailes said: "I don't know whether it's conscious or not. I think people who are biased to the left and right are by and large honest people who bring their life experience to whatever their beliefs are. I don't think there's some conspiracy of bias to the left, ''but I do think that New York and Los Angeles have different views than many people that I know from other parts of the country."'' [http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2005-04-06-media-mix_x.htm]

== Roger Ailes, Fox News Channel CEO, Talking About Fox News ==
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205966,00.html This is a transcript] of Ailes speaking to the Television Critics Association, which will be enlightening to readers digging into the Fox take on reporting and its reaction to controvery about its mission.

== From Anchor To Press Secretary ==

In April, 2006 the White House selected Tony Snow, Fox News Anchorman, to be the new White House press secretary. "Snow, who in his roles as a pundit on Fox News and elsewhere has rapped Bush on several occasions, joined the White House only after extracting a promise that he would become an adviser to the president on day-to-day strategy...the former columnist will be the first outsider to become part of Bush's revamped inner circle.", said the Washington Post. <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/26/AR2006042600558.html/ref>

Snow, 50, worked most recently as host for ''Fox News Sunday, with Tony Snow'' and as host of his own radio talk show. He was a director of speech-writing for President George H.W. Bush and has worked as a [[USA Today]] columnist, Editorial Page Editor of the [[Washington Times]], deputy editorial page editor of the [[Detroit News]] and frequent substitute for radio host [[Rush Limbaugh]].<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060426.html</ref>

==External Links==
:[http://www.foxnews.com/ Fox News]

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Big Bang theory

2007-04-14T06:18:13Z

Ribbix:

[[Image:Universe expansion.png|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state called the ''original singularity''.]]
The '''Big Bang Theory''' is the current dominant scientific theory explaining the creation of the Universe. It models the Universe as expanding from a very hot, dense state approximately 13.7 billion years ago. It was first proposed by [[Georges-Henri Lemaitre]] and evidence for the expansion was observed by [[Edwin Hubble]]<ref>Hubble, E. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp. 168-173.</ref>. Later [[George Gamow]] predicted that the Big Bang would leave an observable microwave background radiation. This radiation was subsequently discovered by [[Bell Labs]] and found to be close to that predicted by Gamow (Gamow predicted a background radiation level equivalent to a roughly 3 K black body object, and the observed level is that of a 2.725 K body).

The term "Big Bang" implies an explosion of matter into pre-existing space, but the theory actually indicates that space is dynamic and more space is constantly created in the interstices between particles as the density of the universe falls. The Hubble [[redshift]] is a consequence of this stretching of the fabric of space.

[[Image:End of universe.jpg|right|thumb|250px|According to the Big Bang theory, the 3 possible geometry of the universe depends on value of the ''[[cosmological constant]]''.]]
Observations of distant supernovae indicate that the Universe is actually undergoing accelerated expansion<ref>Riess, A. G., et al. The Astronomical Journal, Volume 116, Issue 3, pp. 1009-1038.</ref><ref>Perlmutter, S., et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 517, Issue 2, pp. 565-586.</ref>. Modern galaxy surveys<ref>[http://www.sdss.org/dr5/ Sloan Digital Sky Survey]</ref><ref>Tegmark, M., et al. Physical Review D, vol. 74, Issue 12.</ref> and recent observations of the microwave background<ref>[http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe]</ref><ref>See, for example, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603449</ref> have corroborated these claims. Conventional wisdom is that the acceleration is caused by some sort of [[dark energy]], which has not yet been directly observed.

==Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views==
[[Young Earth Creationism|Young earth creationists]] hotly contest the Big Bang Theory. They trace lineages in the Bible to estimate the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.

Some Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists argue that the Big Bang is in fact mentioned in the Bible. <ref>[http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Astronomy]]

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

2007-04-12T08:00:50Z

Ribbix: /* Theory 2 */

{{debate}}

==Theory 1==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As opposed to:
AFTER CREATION:
* O

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Theory 3 ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:Proverbs 25:2

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

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

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

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

== References ==
<references/>