Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Contest3

2007-11-25T19:06:57Z

SimonGordon: /* Forfeit of Contest */ Pots & kettles

This edit contest runs ran for seven days: '''The dates are: Monday Nov. 12th, Noon -- Nov. 19th, Noon EST'''

== Challenges ==

Anyone can post challenges here to the unofficial points in the contest:

* Challenge to 1256 in points for new entries by [[User:SSchultz/Contest3|SSchultz]]. A sampling of those new entries suggests the disqualification. For example, they include a silly [[Ham_Steak]] entry, with a whopping 6 points assigned to that. I suggest that all 1256 of these points be disqualified as an appropriate penalty to deter the harmful practice of over-crediting during a contest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)

::If you're going to challenge my entries, then I challenge all points from edits made to those entries after the fact. Greg Larson, for example, earned a significant number of point from categorizing my entries. If you're claiming the entries are invalid, then no one should get points from them and they should just be deleted from the site. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 15:26, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:::In the issue of fairness, if the work done by SSchultz is removed as are the alterations made by Greg Larson to those articles, then the edits that I made to those articles should be removed as well and my points adjusted accordingly. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 23 November 2007 (EST)

* Judges, please give advance notice of a close in challenges because there may be more. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 21 November 2007 (EST)

* I've noticed that the inquiries to the team captains dealt with concerns with irregularities from the other team. In that case, I'm not sure we are looking at this the right way. I was pleased to enter the contest to help out my captain while at the same time improving the overall Conservapedia website. But when the gun sounded to end the contest and I finished tabulating my totals, I now revert to being part of the larger Conservapedia team which includes all members from the other team as well. If there are any irregularities or areas for improvement from the contest, I would like to think it involves all of the participants as a unit giving overall insight, and that the temporary dividing lines that we put ourselves into last week are no longer an issue. That being said, here are my overall thoughts about the contest:

:* I noticed some undeadended entries for articles of size where a single word on the top line was highlighted, and that was it. I believe in order to match the spirit of undeadending articles, that a pass through the article to apply other appropriate links should have been performed.

:* If a quality new entry is worth 10 points, it seems to me that open ended articles that have no point limits should have some type of reasonable cap that fits within the overall structure of the contest and the value of that edit.

:* If one team is being depopulated through no fault of their own, perhaps in an effort to keep the contest fair and close, the last user on the other team should be switched over to make the numbers more comparable.

:* These are my thoughts. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Honestly, I'm not sure while this review of the results are being done. The Supply Siders out scored the Timberwolves by over 3000 points, and the only thing in dispute seems to be my edits. Even if you subtract the points for my edits, the Supply siders would still win by a very healthy margin. Moreover, point audits have never been done in prior contests. Why not simply declare the winner on the front page as has been the process in the past. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 20:16, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't think the challenges are over. The gap of 3000 points is not terribly large. I'm about to add another challenge for over 2000 points, and there may be further challenges both to protect the integrity of the contest, certify appropriate point totals, and enhance the level of play for the future. Don't take it personally!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Challenge to User:BrianCo for his massive 2433 points merely for linking within American Government Lectures. While those points are probably legitimate in a strictly literal reading of the rules, I question whether the judges want to credit such a one-sided approach, without comparable substantive contributions to other entries. User:BrianCo is a great contributor and this challenge does not suggest any foul play or anything unfair, but the spirit of the contest and this imbalance in point totals may call for an adjustment or reconsideration of that approach for future contests. Well done, BrianCo, but perhaps a bit too well done! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::More than changing points the experience should conduct to better rules for the future. A good article should get 20 points, uploading normal images 4 and quality ones 6. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:48, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::: Superb suggestions, Joaquin!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::Again, if User:BrianCo 's edits aren't valid, then neither should any points for linking within the American Government lectures by any contributor. BrianCo acted within the bounds of the rules and scored himself accurately for the linking. Andy, your team lost the contest plain and simple. You had members who made no contributions whatsoever, and it's unfortunate that you're trying to take points away from people who earned them honestly just to win at any cost. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 13:59, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Point total suggestion: in addition to Joaquin's suggestion, I propose that a quality edit to the Main page be worth 10 points, an ordinary edit be worth 6 points, and a minor edit (such as statistics or a correction) be worth 3 points.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:25, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::Assuming your talking about for the next contest - then the only thing I would object to is the main page edit. Making a main page edit worth 10 points gives way too much of an advantage to sysops, in my opinion - perhaps 6 points instead?.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:41, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::I agree with Andy's point suggestions for the Main page. As for giving the advantage to sysops, the contest is a ''team'' effort; therefore, since each team has sysops, neither team has an advantage. By increasing the points, we can also allow more points for contributions from non-sysops. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 23:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::::Well if you can find out how to guarantee the same number of sysops on each team, thereby having equality between teams as you mentioned, then I'm all for you, but unless we can assure equality within teams then I think 10 is a bit too high - I agree that the point value needs to be raised - but I would suggest to 6.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 23:37, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*I guess since Andy is challenging points as he is, then Team 2 should be challenging Greg Larson for taking off categories from another user, SSchultz, and then taking points again for adding those same articles back into the categories. That is well over 1000 points, as LearnTogether mentioned above. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:56, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:TK, although I posted my views on your talk page I would like to expand them here. I think that challenges to other team's contributions is souring the spirit of the contest. If I remember correctly, after previous contests the verdict was that "Conservapedia was the overall winner", not one particular team. After all, unless I have missed something, there is no obvious benefit to one team or the other being declared the winner - did someone put up a cash prize? In defence of my own contributions, I was only able to connect intermittently during the contest and had do my editing offline. I noticed that Sharon and Bethany (Team Timberwolves) had also accrued large scores through linking American Government Lectures and merely followed their example as it was something I could do in a simple text editor without an internet connection.

:Any perceived unfairness is probably due poor framing of the rules in the first place, and to my mind the competition was rushed into. Joaquin is perfectly correct in his suggestions and while I raised the issue on our team page about him claiming points for uploading an image and then more points for using it in an article (I merely wanted to clarify the issue so that I could adjust my own score if necessary) I agreed with his complaint that it was unfair that his efforts should be better rewarded. Quality articles that require some research, references, categorisation, finding and uploading an image - deserve many more points than something copied and pasted from a public domain source. To my mind minor edits were given a disproprtionate reward, something that I admit I made use of to compensate for my situation.

:I think the whole point of future competitions should be reviewed. Why are they being held; to improve the quality of articles or to increase the total number? There is an inherent conflict in these aims which should be resolved. The rules for this competition were outlined beforehand and so long as edits comply with them then they should be allowed to stand. Public recriminations about other competitors' work does Conservapedia no favors - it appears childish, small-minded and leaves the same bad-taste that quibbling over professional sports now engenders. It also opens us up to ridicule. At my school, the traditional values of sport were upheld, that the playing of the game with respect for your opponents was what mattered, not the winning. If you lost and had played well then you could still hold your head up and be proud of your contribution. These were the values that a British, traditional conservative, Christian school of 450 years standing tried to instill into its pupils, ones that I still hold dear even if they are not universally appreciated. I hope that we can close this issue and move on. If points are deducted from my score then so be it. I will respect the verdict of the judges. I played the game according to the rules and will not make any counter claims against other players, even if it means that my team are disadvantaged by it. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:25, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: BrianCo, please don't take a challenge personally. It reminds me of when my son was first cited by the referee for committee "fouls" in basketball. It made my son very upset. But the "fouls" are part of the game of basketball, challenges and objections are part of the practice of law, and I think post-contest challenges enhance our contests. These challenges facilitate scrutiny of the rules and improves the spirit the game. In the first contest, the judges did disqualify some points and penalize one team. In the second contest, none of that post-contest analysis occurred and I think that was unfortunate. People will compete in these contests closer to their spirit in the future if there is a vigorous post-contest analysis. Challenges help promote that. Thanks and Godspeed, and please feel free to shine light on my team's work in kind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:05, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:::Except that in basketball the opposing coach doesn't get to campaign to get the other team's players charged with fouls. That decision is made by an independent referee in real time. There were no independent referees during the contest, and it will be quite difficult for them to judge now after the fact since some contributors did not mark there contributions individually, such as [[User:BethanyS/Contest|Bethany]] who's edit summary for Day 1 is simply "Links to Lectures:324 pt." Additionally, let's say I was playing basketball with you and I traveled, it doesn't mean that you get to penalize me for every point I scored in the game that far. There is no game in the world where the outcome is changed weeks after the contest is concluded based on complaints by the participants. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Right, but the decision here is also made by an independent judges, and certainly in basketball the coaches do have a big influence in complaining to the refs and alerting them to improper conduct. I vividly recall watching a college game where the coach yelled the ref and pointed him to a foul against his star player, and the ref, upon being alerted, promptly called the foul. There, as here, it is the ref who makes the call. The same is true in litigation. While preferably these calls are made during the contest, the second best alternative is a system where good calls are made after the contest but before a winner is declared, as in boxing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)

* With reluctance, I feel compelled to challenge TK's 280 points which are apparently based on assigning (or merely changing?) one obscure category in a hundred or so entries. I may be mistaken but don't immediately see the value in that re-categorization, even though under a hyper-literal reading of the rules it may be entitled to points. In the quality spirit of the contest, I think these points require a challenge.

* Also, while TK obviously did a splendid job picking his team, I wonder if there should be additional scrutiny and possibly a penalty for how a captain manages his players during a contest. I ended up having to divert precious time and effort from my team towards policing a player on TK's team, and while I'm not seeking points for that effort, I do think judges should consider assessing captains based on unsportsmanlike conduct by their players. I think the analogy in basketball may be the "technical foul" award against a captain or entire team. As I said in my comments to BrianCo above, I hope there is good sportsmanship in reaction to these challenges and that nothing here is taken personally. I do think that challenges and some accountability enhances the contests and will lead to even greater achievements next time!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:43, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: In furtherance to my challenge to TK as captain, I suggest the independent judges consider assessing a penalty when ''any'' captain allows his players to run up the score using methods that are later found to be questionable. Running up the score is generally disfavored in any contest, and in an ideal contest I think a captain should have a duty to channel his talent towards productive activity when way ahead. It's a bit like a football team taking a cheap shot, or running a trick play, when they are already ahead 40-0. It's unsportsmanlike, I feel, and worth reviewing. But I defer completely to our independent judges in the hope of improving future contests, and hope that good sportsmanship is on the receiving end of all challenges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:58, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I feel that you have misinterpreted my statement. I do not feel aggrieved or picked upon because my contributions have been challenged; and I have no objection to post-game analysis. There are certainly areas which could be improved in future contests and I hope my previous comments are taken into account. While gamesmanship may sometimes be questionable, it should be handled during the contest and not after the fact if the game was played to the letter of the law. Some people criticized the English rugby team when they won the world cup for scoring too many points from goals kicked by Johnny Wilkinson but the scoring system has a set numbers of points for a goal or a touch-down. In soccer, technically gifted teams are often frustrated by poor opposition who play defensively and either seek a draw or hope to snatch a sneak win. A team is entitled to play to its strengths. If someone has made an arithmetical error in their score then by all means challenge the calculation but trying to change the result after the final whistle smacks of Al Gore-ism. So far, all we have had is a big row over a family game of Monopoly which is getting increasingly ugly. This is not my style. My time in hospital gave me many hours to reflect on the purpose of life and how we treat those around us. Life is too short to nitpick over a friendly game and I would like my score to be stricken from the record. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 07:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:::: BrianCo, you make many good points. I certainly agree that, in an ideal situation, it is better have challenges and point corrections during a contest rather than afterwards. But sometimes, as here, that is impractical or doesn't happen. Does that mean that post-contest challenges are unhelpful? I don't think so. I think post-contest challenges improve the contests and are worthwhile. Rules and records are at stake for the future. So is the quality of future contests. It's also important to be sportsmanlike when on the receiving end of challenges, both in sports and in life, as you have been.

:::: I'm sure some disagree with me. Barry Bonds set a new home run record without breaking any rules of baseball. I think that record should be taken away from him in a "post-contest" challenge. Apparently the baseball owners disagree, but I think they are making a mistake. Italy won the world cup by calling France's star player a "terrorist", compelling him to strike back and be ejected from the game. This was not confirmed until days after the contest. I think a post-contest challenge would have enhanced the integrity of the World Cup, though I'm not saying Italy's victory should be taken away. I'm not saying your team's apparent victory should be taken away either!

:::: The bottom line is this: do post-contest challenges enhance the quality here, and help the competitiveness of future contests? I think the answer is "yes". It is up to the judges, not to you or me, how to handle your points and that of your teammates. Thanks again for participating, and may the best team be declared the winner! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:05, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Forfeit of Contest ==

*I take it very personally, since I was among two or three others who begged you to provide stricter, clearer rules, and was rebuffed by you. I also cannot find anywhere, among our several contests, any mention that "Team Captain" is anything other than honorific. If it were a real position, with responsibilities, it would have been spelled out. What is clear, more than every, is that Andy should not ever again be team leader. He wears too many hats, and does not dispense his rulings in a fair manner, having made up new rule, new interpretations after the contest began. In what contest or sport is this allowed? The answer is, nowhere. Even though Andy on both his talk page and via email asked me to be in charge of deciding upon Categories, and even though the one I created was better umbrella category than the several we had for Government terminology, I hereby forfeit all points I took, as Andy, in his spirit of good sportsmanship, is obviously a far better judge of what is fair or decent. If it helps, I hereby invoke these powers of "Captain" that I didn't know I had, hereby also forfeit the contest also and declare Andy's team the winner. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:48, 25 November 2007 (EST)

: TK, the very essence of a wiki is the feedback, often critical, that it facilitates for one's work. If we don't like criticism of our own work, then we should consider going into gardening or becoming monks in a monastery! But that may not totally insulate us, and I'm sure appropriate criticism occurs in those environments also.

: As [[conservatives]], we welcome accountability and we should accept it in a sportsmanlike manner. That applies to me, and to all of us. And, yes, there are contests where the outcome is subject to post-contest challenges. This occurs in the Olympics, for example. You'd have a hard time finding a contest where each player awards his own points and then objects to post-contest review by an independent referee or judge! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::Isn't the dispense of rulings in an unfair manner, making up new rules and new interpretations off the cuff how Conservapedia works? Pots, kettles and black comes to mind.[[User:SimonGordon|SimonGordon]] 14:06, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Judges ==

Sign up as a judge here to review the work, tally the results, and recommend changes (if any) for the next contest:

*[[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]]
*[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo]]

== The Teams ==

{|width="75%" class="wikitable"
|-
!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|[[Conservapedia:Team Timberwolves|Timberwolves]] !!colspan="2" width="50%" style="font-variant:small-caps"|[[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders|Supply Siders]]
|-
!width="25%"|Captain
|width="25%"|[[User:Aschlafly|Andy]]
!width="25%"|Captain
|width="25%"|[[User talk:TK|TK]]
|-
!colspan="2"|Members
!colspan="2"|Members
|-
|colspan="2"|
#[[User:SharonS|Sharon]]
#[[User:GregLarson|Greg]]
#[[User:BethanyS|Bethany]]
#[[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]
#[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]
#[[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]]
#[[User:MexMax|MexMax]]
#[[User:JesusFreak94|Jessica]]
#Member 9
#Member 10
|colspan="2"|
#[[User talk:Iduan|Iduan]]
#[[User talk:DanH|DanH]]
#[[User talk:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]]
#[[User talk:Mathers|Mathers]]
#[[User talk:Crocoite/Contest3|Crocoite]]
#[[User talk:SSchultz|SSchultz]]
#[[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]]
#[[User talk:Learn_together|Learn_together]]
#[[User talk:BrianCo|Brian]]
#[[User talk:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]]

|}
(''The top 7 scorers on either team will qualify towards its point total.'')

===Those Interested===
#[[User:Aschlafly]](captain team 1) - I'm in. I thought I was a captain, but I guess that has changed! Maybe each team should pick their captain.
::As of now - you are! Just wanted to make sure you were able to be in.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 19:45, 8 November 2007 (EST)

#<s>[[User:Iduan]]</s>
#<s>[[User:DanH]]</s>
#<s>[[User:GregLarson]]</s>
#<s>[[User:Dewey]]</s>
#<s>[[User:SharonS]]</s>
#<s>[[User:Lukecorlando]]</s>
#<s>[[User:BethanyS]]</s>
#<s>[[User:Ed Poor]]</s> - provided my team captain helps me to keep track of my score (I'm a prolific contributor, but I hate taking credit for my work)You'll do as your told, and keep your own score, Poor! :P
#<s>[[User:Crocoite]]</s> - provided the points scoring is amended to include Breaking News items and edits to associated articles. See my comments on the talk page.
#<s>[[User:Mathers]]</s> Can I get in on this? I missed the last one.
#<s>[[User:DeborahB.]]</s>
#<s>[[User:SSchultz]]</s> - I believe I can contribute a lot, and a contest would be a lot of fun.
#<s>[[User:TheGuy]]</s> - if it's not too late, I will hopefully have a bit of time on my hands in the coming weeks
#<s>[[User:MexMax|MexMax]]</s> - I've just signed up, but I have wiki experience, and I've been watching the site for a while (just too busy to contribute 'til now). May I join? Oh, I'll be happy to keep track of my own points.
#<s>[[User:BrianCo]]</s> - May not always be online but can work offline. Regret having missed the earlier ones.
#<s>[[User:Learn_together]]</s> - Have fun everyone! ;-)
====Notices====
Ok - so since Learn Together has yet to respond - and given his absence for quite some time now - I've asked TK if he wants to be a captain - and he has accepted.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]22:44, 8 November 2007 (EST)

== Point System ==
===New entry===
Quality new entry: '''10 points'''
*''Definition'':A Quality New Entry includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, several links to other entries, some in-depth content and designations of category.
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality New Entries will receive only '''5 points'''.

Ordinary New Entry: '''6 points'''
*''Definition'': An Ordinary New Entry is a new entry which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality New Entry, but is of higher quality than a Short New Entry.
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Ordinary New Entries will receive only '''3 points'''.

Short New Entry: '''4 points'''
*''Definition'': A Short New Entry contains only a few sentences and may or may not have a reference.
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related Short New Entries will receive only '''2 points'''.

===Existing entry===
Quality edit of an existing entry: '''4 points'''
*''Definition'': A Quality Edit to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact, ''or'' adding a quality image to an article without any.
*''Exception'': Entertainment-related* Quality Edits will receive only '''2 points'''.

Minor Edit of an existing entry: '''2 points'''
*''Definition'': A Minor Edit is an edit which does not meet the qualifications for a Quality Edit. These edits might include small formatting changes, spelling and grammatical changes and/or the addition of a category.

===Breaking News===
Breaking News Item: '''3 points'''
*''Definition:'' A Breaking news item is placed on the Main page with wiki links to Conservapedia articles and a link to the external reference article.
*''Exception:'' A non-administrator who submits an article to an administrator and the article is placed on the Main page will receive 1 point and the administrator will receive 2 points for adding the article and links. It is at the administrator's discretion whether to place the article on the Main page. Editing an associated article (wikilinked) will score points under the regular points system.

===Bonus Points===
*An additional bonus of '''3 points''' is awarded for adding a new entry on the "most-wanted" list, [[Special:Wantedpages]]
*An additional bonus of 1 point is awarded for adding a link to an entry on the [[Special:Deadendpages]], and thereby removing that entry from that list
*An edit to an existing entry may qualify as a New Entry if the edit is substantial enough.
*Adding a unique working link within a lecture: '''2 points'''
::*Adding an additional (non-unique) working links for the same term within the same American Government Lecture: '''1 point'''
*Adding a relevant photo to ''Breaking News'' will receive a '''2 points''' bonus.
*Adding two new terms to American Government Terms: '''1 point'''
*Blocking a vandal/sock/troll or reverting their vandalism: '''2 points'''. Cannot be doubled in case of those with blocking abilities.

===Notes===
An entry is "entertainment-related" if it relates to a subject not taught as core curriculum in a typical high school or college. This includes articles on sports, popular music, movies, and other entertaining but not necessarily educational subjects.
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for notable or important historical subjects, and for political entries.
*''Exception'': Full credit will be given for reasonable subjects which are educational but not necessarily taught in a typical school.

[[category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Moon

2007-11-25T19:03:02Z

SimonGordon: /* Disagreement with current entry */ Leave the article alone.

==Disagreement with current entry==

I couldn't decide whether to erase this article and make an actual page for the moon, or rebut the points made by Aschlafly. I figured I might be banned if I just rewrote it, but this article is so silly that it doesn't really warrent a point by point rebuttal.

As it is written, this article is not about the moon. It is simply a collection of creationist claims about the moon, which belong in pages for creationism. A page about the moon should certainly include physical data and scientific theories of the moon's formation, and THEN it would be appropriate to bring up the christian objections to those theories.

In addition to the above, these arguments are not even credible. Answers in Genesis asks christians not to argue that a receding moon argues for a young earth. Point 5 is illogical on its face. It says that our solar system is one of few (Source? how few is "few"?) that has a single star. (Also, it says only one moon, which is false, their are many moons in our solar system, earth has only one moon.) The truely illogical part is that being one of these supposed few demonstrates "uniqueness." Clearly if there are multiple systems that meet the criteria, than our solar system is NOT unique. Does this argue for the existence of multiple Gods? Of course not, but no more so than it argues for one God. It is simply an erroneous, illogical, and irrelevant statement. Conservapedia will be rightly mocked for allowing content like this.

So editors, please advise. How should I proceed? Erase the article and replace it with a more thorough, more appropiate page, or will that result in banning?

:I advise that you add your description of the moon at the top of the article and put the rest in a section towards the bottom. Thank you for your contributions. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 20:36, 22 February 2007 (EST)

I don't see any way to edit the page, but the reason why one face of the moon is always turned towards earth is because of tidal locking, not coincidence.

: "Tidal locking" doesn't explain it. You'll have to justify your argument much better than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

: tidal locking can be seen elsewhere in the solar system. Pluto and Charon, for example. Or the moons of Phobos and Deimos to Mars. Using Mercury to explain the phenomena away isn't really accurate.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:56, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:: The same claim was made about Mercury, misleading people for years, before it was proven false. Similar flaws can be expected to be found with the other bodies. "Tidal locking" would not explain the totally synchronous orbit anyway. There would be deviations greater than what is seen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Point 5 in the article is complete and utter nonsense and should be removed. It is an opinion of one person with absolutely no relation to the moon. Can someone please unlock this article?--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 12:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:The article should be just as Mr. Schlafly wants it. This article will be there, along with dinosaurs, as a shining example of the CP wacky wikiness we have grown to love.
:People will come in droves to enjoy the lulz. Please, please leave the article as intended. There's plenty of factual information about the moon elsewhere on the internet. [[User:SimonGordon|SimonGordon]] 14:03, 25 November 2007 (EST)

==Further Disagreement with current entry==

Some links and comments about the points in the article:

1. If you check [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse the Wikipedia article for Solar Eclipses], you'll note "An annular eclipse occurs when the Sun and Moon are exactly in line, but the apparent size of the Moon is smaller than that of the Sun. Hence the Sun appears as a very bright ring, or annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon." (there's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RingfoermigeSonnenfinsternis.jpg a pic] too) so its not always a perfect match; this is because the moon's orbit is not a perfect circle, but rather an ellipse: "The distance from from the Earth to the Moon varies by about 13% as the Moon travels in its orbit around us." [http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/lunarorbit.html]

: Of course it's not completely, 100%, absolutely physically identical, and the entry does not claim it is. Neither are perfect twins, by the way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: The entry claims "Throughout man's existence, the Moon has had the same size as the Sun when viewed from Earth." This is demonstrably not true. It is similar, but if it was "the same" then annular eclipses would not occur. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

2. [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/tides.html] The link given about Mercury also gives the scientific explanation about the moon BTW. Also, the deal with Mercury (from that article) was apparently because it was claimed that the direct visual observation of it indicated that it had a single side facing the sun; *that* was wrong. We can clearly see that the moon presents the same side.

: This doesn't refute the statement in point 2 that "The cause of the bulge on the Moon to lock in its rotation remains a mystery to those who reject design."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: quoting from the link: "Since Earth's gravity is much stronger than the Moon's, the tides from the Earth on the Moon are much stronger than the Moon's tides on the Earth. The Moon has tidal bulges just like the Earth, and so it too was slowed by the Earth's pull on its nearer bulge." And especially if the moon started out as a molten mass it would have solidified in a non-spherical shape as a result. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

3. [http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html]

: Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Did you even bother to read the link? Right now point 3 is "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." But iron does not 'permeate' the earth, it is far far more common in the core than in the outer layers. And the computer modeling mentioned at the link demonstrated that if a large enough meteor struck the earth, its iron would sink to the core and blast out a large amount of the less dense outer layers and *that* is what they're saying the moon was made from. They further argue that "The moon has exactly the same oxygen isotope composition as the Earth, whereas Mars rocks and meteorites from other parts of the solar system have different oxygen isotope compositions." -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

4. That's basically "Slichter's dilemma" and was solved by the 80's [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html]

: Talkorigins.org is not an authority. Your point?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: talkorigins.org has a lot of very useful material based on mainstream science. You can argue against it point by point, but dismissing it out of hand is not very useful to fixing the mistakes in this article. My point, if you actually read the article, is that since the 80's its been demonstrated that with a better model of the continents incorporated into the earth-moon system you get an age for the moon that is several billion years old, not "a young age for the Moon of no more than one billion years" which led to "Slichter's dilemma". -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

5. There are "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy alone. [http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/milkyway.php] So "few" could easily be many many million in just our 'neighborhood' of the universe.

: Many millions of solar systems with just one sun? You need to support that far-fetched claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:34, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Aschlafly, perhaps you are not aware that the stars we see in the sky are actually different suns. They only look faint and point-like because they are so far away. Astronomers are now finding that many of these stars have their own planets orbiting them, so yes, evidence does point to many millions of solar systems (each orbiting their own parent star) existing in our Galaxy alone.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/news_releases/news_0601_10.html] states that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system" So in the article where it says "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun." its actually 'one of the third'. Combine that with "hundreds of billions of stars" in our galaxy, that's dozens of billions with only one sun. And BTW, there are "many billion" galaxies in the universe (likely somewhere between 10 and 125 billion [http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/TopazMurray.shtml]) so the number of one sun solar systems is, literally, astronomical ;) The only thing "far-fetched" is to claim that the article as currently written is accurate in the least. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 17:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Minor nitpick: I figure it is more like half the solar systems in our galaxy have just one sun. If the other half are binary, then it would still be correct that "Two out of every three stars in the Milky Way is a member of a binary or multiple star system". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hey, good point! Thanks for spotting that :) -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 21:55, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

All five of these points should really be dropped, as has been previously suggested. -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:32, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Number 5==
The existence of 1 moon and 1 sun suggest 2 gods to me (1+1=2). Throw in the Earth and we are up to 3. Now, toss in the other planets and their moons and we are getting up to a pretty awesome set of gods and goddesses. All we need is a rainbow bridge to heaven!

1 moon; 1 earth = 1 God?

1 web site; one nutcase writer = 1 screwed up view of the world.

Could someone please unlock the Moon page so a professional can repair it? The first four points on this page are demonstratably false, and the fifth point is just religious opinion that has absolutely nothing to do with the Moon.

== Current Article Factually Incorrect ==
Again, can someone please unlock this article? The first four points are factually incorrect. If vandalism is an issue, then at least remove the incorrect material and keep a bare-bones page instead. [[User:Macronking|Macronking]]

: Errors explained and supported are corrected. Ideologically motivated claims of error are not. All I see here so far are the latter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:33, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The article needs work, and even contradicts itself. Item 2 says "without any plausible physical reason",
and then gives tidal forces as a physical reason. Item 3 says "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin" after giving the theory that the Moon broke off from the Earth. Item 5 is completely silly. There are billions of solar systems with only one sun. We don't know of any with something like the Earth and Moon, but there are certainly many with one sun. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I welcome specific suggestions for improvements. Ideologically motivate changes without proof, of course, would be better sent to Wikipedia!

: Point 2 is correct, there is not "any plausible physical reason." The point then notes that tidal forces do not explain the bulge on the moon, and how the same theory for Mercury has been disproven.

: Point 3 explains why the Moon could not have possibly broken off from the Earth, which was the leading theory until samples were taken from the Moon that showed its crust is nothing like the Earth's.

: Point 5 is correct. I'll look for a cite. There is no evidence that there are "billions of solar systems with only one sun."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I think that it is reasonable to say that the Earth-Moon system is very unusual in the universe, as far as we know. We don't know how unusual, but some of those unusual aspects may be critical for life on Earth as we know it. It is also a fact that the Moon has less iron than Earth, and is receding.
:: But it is very misleading to avoid saying that there is a generally accepted scientific theory that the Moon resulted from a gigantic collision with the Earth several billion years ago. The theory explains the lack of iron and several other anomalies. I don't know why you avoid this, since it is consistent with your thesis that the Earth-Moon system is unique.
:: Your tidal comments are nonsense. The same tidal force theory that explains the Moon's rotation also explains Mercury's. Mercury just happens to be locked into a slightly different resonance. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RSchlafly is right on all 3 points. In fact, they used to suppose that Mercury's resonance resulted in an 88-day rotational period, same as its "year". I was in 4th grade when I happened to find out that Mercury's rotational period was actually 58.6 days, due to its 3:2 resononce. That is, it rotates 3 times for every 2 revolutions around the sun. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And I immediately corrected my dad's Encyclopedia Britannica in red ink! (I was born for this, you see. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Simple rebuttal to Aschlafly's Moon point #4 ==

Your Moon point #4 that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past can easily shown to be false in three lines. First, write the total angular momentum (L) for the Earth+Moon system. It consists of three parts: the Earth's rotation on its axis, the Moon's rotation on its axis, and the Moon's revolution about the Earth:

L = Ie We + Im Wm + r^2 Mm Wm

where Ie and Im are the momen of inertias of the Earth and Moon, We and Wm are the angular rotations of the Earth and Moon, Mm is the mass of the Moon and r is the Earth-Moon radius.
Second, since angular momentum is conserved, take the time derivative dL/dt, set it to zero, and solve for dr/dt. For brevity, I'll denote the time derivate with a D, so dr/dt = Dr. This gives:

Dr = -(DWe + DWm(1 + Mm r^2)) / (2 r Wm Mm)

Third, both the numerator and denominator in this expression are positive, since We and Wm are negative (both the Moon and Earth rotate slower, that is We and Wm are less than zero, as energy is lost due to tidal friction). This means that Dr is positive. So the rate of change in the Earth-Moon distance is increasing with time, so it was slower in the past. This refutes your claim that the Moon must have been receeding faster in the past.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 12:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I've shown that one critical point in your Moon point #4 is incorrect. Please unlock the page so a professional can correct it.--[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 14:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: Presumably the speed of the Moon's orbit would decrease as it got further away. I don't see how you factored that into your analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree that Moon point #4 is incorrect, but I am not sure that your argument is correct either. It looks like a good argument that Dr is positive, but then you conclude that Dr is increasing. For that you would need to show that the 2nd derivative is positive. I don't see why that follows from your argument. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Huh==

So I thought I had found the most ridiculous articles when looking through various animals, and dinosaurs. I was wrong. This article, if you can even call it that, is basically just a list of how to (wrongly) justify creationism by attempting to find logic in the solar system.

First of all, one source? ONE SOURCE? For an entire article about something which should have plenty of scientific sources about various things? Not a mention of humans landing on the moon, only mention of scientific theory of its creation is trying to disprove it (wrongly again), no mention of the other moons in the universe, no mention of what the moon is made of, no mention of water that used to be on the moon, no mention of impact craters, no mention of physical characteristics, no mention of anything FACTUAL.

1. Very irrelevant, is this an artistic study source or an encyclopedia?

2. Last sentence is again very irrelevant, and there are several different theories to why this occurs. Tidal forces should not be dismissed so easily either, especially with only once source using Mercury to show that it does not work that way. We're not talking about Mercury, are we? This is (like most articles on this website) trying to state things as fact which are opinions.

3. "There is no plausible non-creation theory of origin for the Moon at this time." - Made me fall out of my chair laughing. Did you take science class in school? Doesn't seem like it. There are a ton of theories for the moon, and the primary theory is definately not what you said it was. That was an early speculation at most. I always thought that the primary theory was that a space rock hit earth and part of that formed the moon, which also explains the Earth's tilt.

4. Wrong wrong wrong wrong WRONG. The main theory, once again, is not that the piece broke off from the Earth. The theory that a space rock hit the Earth would account for everything, making this point completely irrelevant, biased, and incorrect.

5. "Our solar system is one of the few that has only one sun. Only one sun and only one moon: this uniqueness may reflect the existence of only one God." - more laughter from me. How does it reflect the existance of one God? Does that mean in the billions of other solar systems there are other gods? And if they have two suns and two moons, there's two? It makes no logical sense what-so-ever, and is once again irrelevant to this article. If you have personally travelled to every solar system, I suppose that would be a reliable source. But, you haven't, and haven't cited anything for this amazingly inaccurate statement, so please fix the article. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 15:37, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. Unlock the article. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Global" (no pun intended) reply to the above ==

As a simple matter of the history of theories of the moon's origin, the above criticism is completely false. There were "accepted" theories of the moon's origin, and they were all disproven by the lunar landings. Even if you cling to those theories, please admit the historical facts. Afterwards, in a panic, scientists convened to develop a brand new theory of the moon's origin. The current theory was the result of the scientists not being able to think of any other atheistic explanation. That's all.

Let's proceed this way. Obviously ALFa wants to take a crack at a content page. I've just written [[Moon Theories]] and it is unlocked and available for ALFa to edit. After we improve it and hopefully agree on some content, then let's merge the best of it with the [[Moon]] page. Sound like a good procedure? Feel free to start right in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:" any other atheistic explanation ". Ok, but filling the gaps in science with religious faith is not in the least bit helping anyone. All you have done is criticise the current theory. There is most definitely no religious explanation that can be tested since it requires a person to have faith in something that cannot be seen, heard, sensed etc. For example, there is an anomaly with the Pioneer 10 spacecraft where it has veered off course and can not as yet be explained by scientists. One could say that God had a "hand" in this, but we cannot test this hypothesis at all and requires complete faith to continue to believe this idea. That is why more scientific investigation needs to be conducted and not signing the idea straight off to God.--[[User:Sm355|Sm355]] 19:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Answers in Genesis]] ascribes to the idea that "the moon was specially created ex nihilo at its present distance and in its present orbit some 6,000 years ago" [http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/moon.asp] A [[Moon Theories]] page will not resolve the conflict then since there is a fundamentally unresolved matter of the age of the universe (e.g. mainstream science estimates that the moon and earth are nearly a million times older than AiG does) from which most of the conflict between mainstream science and biblical literalism derives IMHO. There is no need for rhetoric about 'atheistic explanations' BTW. The current scientific explanation is basically a glorified version of 'a big rock hit a bigger rock and knocked off a piece'. The "several striking characteristics that only be described as artistic in design" sounds rather like the Virgin Mary sightings in baking pans, etc. [http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1792037/posts] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4468275.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2999172.stm] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4034787.stm] that is, people seeing what they want to see... -- [[User:Limulus|Limulus]] 04:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Article is disturbing ==

I think that Ronald Reagan is a great man. I also see dangerous doctrines of social engineering coming out of the ideology of Darwinism. But when I look at this locked moon page, I see a strange message that conservatives shouldn't overthink astronomy. There is a lot that the page doesn't say about the moon. It doesn't give its diameter, its mass, the length of its orbit, or its distance from the earth. It doesn't give its composition as studied in the Apollo program. Heck, it doesn't even say that men landed on the moon at all! All it does is give a numbered argument for why the moon is evidence for young-Earth creation specifically. It also has only one single reference for one of its many points.

So I took an interest in the references. I did not know that the moon is receding from the Earth, so I looked that up. NASA says that the moon is receding from the Earth at 3.8 centimeters per year [http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html], whereas this page says: "The Moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 6 inches per year. The Moon could never have been closer than about 150,000 miles or it would have been broken up by tidal forces. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 6 inches per year,..." If you are only interested in what the rate of recession is less than, why stop at 6 inches? Why not say, "The moon is currently receding from the Earth at less than 10 feet per year. If the rate of recession is assumed to have averaged about 10 feet per year..."

I also did not know much about the surface composition of the moon, so I looked that up too. This page says, "The Moon's surface lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth, thereby proving that the Moon did not come from the Earth." I think that the first half of that is true, but according to this page [http://www.permanent.com/l-apollo.htm], the Earth's surface also lacks the abundant iron that permeates the Earth. Are we not supposed to think about the difference between surfaces and permeations? [[User:PBrown|PBrown]] 13:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Changes==

I've altered the article to more closely reflect the contents of the reference given, and to correct some errors on the Roche limit section. Might put up an article on tidal locking later if no one else gets to it. Also removed the reference to 'artistic' features, since I don't see anything particularly artistic about, say, iron deficiency. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Far side and near side ==

"Not surprisingly, it turned out to look a lot like near side."

The far side does not look like the near side. There are no great seas across it and it is simply a lot of craters. [http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter9/09f19.html] 31% of the near side is covered in these seas while only 2.5% of the far side is. They do not look anything alike. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*You're right. I removed it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Old Earth ==

While Conservapedia does not take sides in this, it does tell the truth, and the truth is that [[atheists]] heavily promote old earth theories as a way of leading students away from [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:I think "promoted by atheists" is unnecessary - Christian astronomers such as [[Guillermo Gonzalez]], Alan Sandage (discovered of quasars) and Fred Heeren (a Christian apologist) are old earth believers, and there is nothing inherently atheistic about what they believe. "Promoted by atheists" is true, but atheists also promote a lot of other things. The fact is, many theists promote it as well, so it's a non sequitur. Just because atheists use it as a tool to lead some from faith does not mean that they should have dominion of the field. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

I don't object to having young earth bias in the articles, but to say that if you don't believe in a young earth, you're an atheist, that really offends me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:28, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: No one said that, Dan. But it is indisputable that [[atheists]] promote, and promote heavily, a theory of an old earth. And it's obvious why they do so: it leads many students, though obviously not all, away from [[faith]] and political views consistent with [[faith]]. Show me 100 teenagers who believe the earth is over 10 billion years old, and I'll show you 90 teenagers growing up to be [[atheists]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If an atheist says the sky is blue, those agreeing with him are also atheists? Ergo, just because most atheists are thought to believe in an Earth older than 6,000 or so years, that makes it an "atheistic thought"? Poppycock! What kind of ideology-driven, non logic is that? You are not backing down to atheists by re-stating that clearly, and taking away the pious, insults leveled at the majority of Christians. You have now switched the time-frame from a billion to ten billion years, without explaining that. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:43, 23 November 2007 (EST) 

:(Repeating some of Andy's post which I wrote before I had an edit conflict with him, then TK.) I don't think anyone said that believing in an old earth makes one an atheist. If they did, I would disagree with them.
:However, there ''is'' something inherently atheistic about belief in an old Earth and moon when the Bible ''clearly'' teaches that the whole of creation is "young" (i.e. around 6,000 years old). Christians who believe in an old creation do so because of non-biblical reasons, i.e. reasons promoted by atheists (or because they trust other Christians who believe such). See [[Old Earth Creationism]] for evidence of this.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:44, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*Totally amazing, Philip, that all those billions of Catholics, and other Churches, seem to miss this "truth" you and others claim.....--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::TK, no one said that people who agree with [[atheists]] about an old earth must also be [[atheists]]. It's a [[Christian]] view that there is life after death. That does not mean everyone who believes in life after death are [[Christians]]. [[Hindus]] are not, for example.

::But we ''are'' going to the tell the truth here, and [[atheists]] ''do'' heavily promote their view of an old earth to weaken and often destroy the [[faith]] of teenagers and adults. And once that [[faith]] is destroyed, many other things follow: depression, despondency, [[abortion]], [[liberal]] political views, etc. Is this effect seen in every single case? Of course not. Is it seen on a statistical basis out of groups of hundreds, thousands and millions? Of course it is. And we're going to tell the truth here.

::As to "billions of Catholics and other Churches" believing in an old earth, TK, that is precisely the type of [[liberal]] [[hearsay]] and misperceptions that we criticize and expose here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:53, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*So, you have dared to publicly brand what I said, factual as it is, as being like "Liberal hearsay" and a misconception of what the Roman Catholic Church believes? That what I said was a "mis-characterization", that the Catholic Church believes in a Earth older than 6,000 years? I just want you to state that is so publicly, here if that is what you meant to say. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:59, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::(Replying to TK)
:::* I doubt that there's "billions" of Catholics, at least if you are just counting ones alive today.
:::* The majority believing something does not make it right.
:::* If you count Christians over the last 2000 years, plus Jews before that, most would have believed it to be 6,000 years (now), so the ''majority'' in this case ''is'' for a young moon.
:::* An ''appeal to popularity'' argument is a logical fallacy.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::''The Roman Catholic Church - the largest branch of Christianity - says there are a total of 1.156 billion baptized members around the globe.'' --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:::: I guess that might ''just'' qualify as "billions" (plural), but that still leaves my other points unanswered. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Conversely, Philip, a ''minority'' believing something is right, like a 6,000 year old Earth, does not make it "right" either. Nor should the beliefs of that minority be constantly presented as "the truth", the only truth, because it is insulting to others. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:02, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:: True (your first sentence), but YECs are not claiming it to be true ''because of majority opinion'', like you claimed for an old Earth, so that is irrelevant.
:: There is nothing wrong with presenting the beliefs of the minority as true ''if they are true'', and you are concentrating on arguments of popularity rather than addressing the points that I raised.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:11, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: TK, out of 1 billion Catholics worldwide, I'd be surprised if 1% of them believe the Earth is more than 1 billion years old as taught by the [[atheists]]. But I will say this: more than 50% of educated ex-Catholics (and ex-Christians) lost their [[faith]] because they were indoctrinated with [[atheistic]] dogma in school. Promoting an old earth view is perhaps the single most effective way of enticing a teenager to lose their [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Andy, please answer the question! Are you branding my statements as mis characterization of what the Catholic Church believes, and me being out-of-step with Conservative thought? Your time frame keeps jumping wildly between a billion and ten billions of years, so it is hard to answer what time-frame you imagine is being taught. And so long as one accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord, and accepts that all of creation is God's work, should this be the battle you (or any of us) should fight, given all of Christianity is under attack? My answer is no, it should not! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:21, 23 November 2007 (EST)

:: [[Faith]] requires belief in [[Jesus]] ''and'' only one [[Adam]], and the Catholic Church has absolutely prohibited anyone from teaching to the contrary. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

This is a deeply personal issue for me that cuts to the edge of an intense faith struggle in my past, so I don't share it often. And I agree with Andy that proving an old earth threatens the faith of many. But we must still reach out to these people who are taught this and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins. It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins. If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old? No, we are to disagree with them on this issue, knowing that Biblical history and prophecy verify the Bible.

Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this. Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth. The Bible does not NECESSITATE IT. David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.

I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others. I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. I talked to a couple of Southern Baptist seminary students who helped me out. I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible. I know others have lost their faith in this manner - scientist Greg Neyman has documented this trend. Both sides are guilty of this - old earthers try to destroy faith of the young earthers by proving the earth is old, and young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young. All that matters for the plan of Salvation is set in place in the New Testament. I don't even mind the article putting forth every young earth article out there, but I would hope that the article would say "old earth view put forth by atheists and old Earth creationists." If I sat next to any young earth believer in a pew in Sunday morning, nothing would theologically differentiate us other than the insignificant issue of origins. The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:46, 23 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, virtually no one's [[faith]] survives the [[atheistic]] promotion of an old earth. Perhaps only 1 in 100 can, and not much more than that. Even if your [[faith]] survives, you'll be causing others to lose their [[faith]] by espousing an old earth. This is as factual as observing how alcoholics lose their health over time.

: Personally, I didn't reject an old earth for reasons of [[faith]]. I completely accepted an old earth until I was about 40 years old. I only rejected an old earth based a thorough open-minded application of logic and science that took several years. Then, as an unexpected bonus, I found my [[faith]] greatly strengthened. I had been taught all the lies about the Catholic Church embracing an old earth (not true), about how science proves it (not true), about how everyone supposedly accepts it (not true), etc.

: One thing I've noticed is how a believer in an old earth will shy away from debate of the issue when he senses his belief in an old earth might be shaken. That's how darkness works: it abhors light. Most of the believers in an old earth would change their mind as soon as they allow it to be open, and allow logic to shine in. Try it, please. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 24 November 2007 (EST)

I like to always keep an open mind on this issue, so I don't wish to shy away from these issues. I will try to expand my readings of more diverse sources on the issue in the future. I don't like to promote my old earth views out of fear that I may damage another's faith - when talking about reasons to believe, I prefer to talk about historical verification of the faith because anyone who claims that Jesus did not rise from the dead has a lot of explaining to do when looking at the history. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:15, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:Perhaps if we just specify more precisely - rather than saying that atheist support it (which, in fairness to both Dan and TK - does kind of imply that Christians don't support it) - we could say, Atheist and non-Young-Earth Christians support it? I mean, that's obviously a completely true statement - and that way we can make sure not to offend anyone - so really it's a win-win.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Dan, please realize that [[Jesus]] and His sacrifice make no sense unless there was one [[Adam]] and his original sin. The Catholic Church has prohibited teaching anything to the contrary about man's origins.

But, as I said, I reject an old earth based on logic and science. The arguments for an old earth have logical flaws and much [[deceit]], while arguments against it are compelling. But watch how old earth believers are pulled away from discussing it with an open mind, as I was until I overcame that when I was 40 years old.

Unfortunately, I have to sign off soon tonight but will be back online tomorrow morning. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:29, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:I do believe in one Adam, a special creation, and I don't think not believing in one is an option, given that Adam is mentioned both in the Old Testaments and New. It is unfortunate that many old earth believers do not. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:: OK, now how about a worldwide flood ''after'' the origin of man? There is limestone in every part of the world, at every altitude. There are salt-water lakes inland and high altitudes. There's no doubting that a worldwide flood occurred after the origin of life, as limestone can only be formed from the sidement of living organisms. The [[Grand Canyon]] can only plausibly be explained as having been formed by a flood. But many old earthers will deny all this to erode [[faith]], particularly in students. Dan, what's your view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:39, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:My view is the same as Greg Neyman - universal flood but local in nature. However, I didn't come to the site to promote science - I came to promote a Christian worldview and political conservatism. I feel demonized, by being accused of promoting atheism and rejecting God (as evidenced by the last comment of Phillip's reply to me - that's really what it says.) I don't wish to make anybody believe the same I do about origins - I simply want to be accepted as a Christian with a different view on the issue, just as one with multiple denominations. I am going to need some time to reconsider my role on this project. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::: My comment was about those that reject God; it wasn't putting you in that category—I know that you don't reject God. I do accept you as a Christian with a different view on the issue, and the only reason for challenging your view is because you made statements that I felt needed a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:: Dan, I don't know who Greg Neyman is, and I'm just trying to have an open-minded discussion of this topic with you and others here, which is what the real value in a wiki is. Maybe we can learn from each. We're not going to learn anything if discussion ends, that's for sure.

:: From a purely scientific point of view, if there was no universal flood, then why is there limestone (which requires water and organisms) at every altitude and every part of the world? Why are there salt-water lakes far inland and at high altitudes all around the world? From a purely religious point of view, were there descendants of Adam outside of Neyman's theory of a flood? That would cause doctrinal problems that undermine Jesus' Crucifixion.

:: As perhaps you'll agree, the promotion of an old earth does erode faith in many people. From a belief in the old earth comes a denial of Adam and/or the Flood, and eventually denial by many of the purpose of Jesus, and before long many people are ex-Catholics or ex-Christians who don't want to discuss it anymore. It's sad and entirely avoidable with open-minded discussion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:51, 24 November 2007 (EST)

::I don't know much about limestone and the Grand Canyon, other than a supposed refutation of the model that explains the deposition of sandstone in the Grand Canyon during the flood. I will read more about the issue - I am not as averse to the idea of a universal flood as many on the old earth side, given that any flood would have had to be a miracle in any event and it would certainly be within God's power. The interpretation of a local flood would hold that the entire population of Earth was destroyed, but that the flood was only large enough to kill the population (under the Hebrew meaning of the term kol eretz, which means all the land, both here and elsewhere in the Old Testament), and thus that the descendants of Noah were the only remaining people (and thus the descendants of Adam). When we read the Bible today, we bring in modern assumptions, such as that of a spherical earth. Not all people necessarily had that knowledge then, although the Bible does refer to the "circle" of the earth in the book of Job or Psalms. Thus, the same word that would have been used to refer to a flood over the entire earth may have referred to a flood that simply killed all of the people on earth. But a global flood might have been possible as well.

I would strongly agree with you that shying away from intellectual issues is a major problem with the proliferation of atheism, which is a shame, given that all of archaeology, history, and science (anthropic principle, impossibility of evolution, etc.) points to the truth of the Bible. I won't even doubt that some have turned away because of the views of an Old Earth, or that some have modified their biblical reading to fit with scientific observations. I will freely admit to this charge - although I think we do it more often than we think. When we read Joshua's account of the sun standing still, we don't take this to refer to heliocentrism as many did before discoveries indicated otherwise - we take this to refer to how the sun appeared from the Earth. It's not the most natural reading, but it is a ''possible'' reading of Scripture - and that is how old Earth interpretations are - not the most natural readings, but possible ones nonetheless. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:04, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: A local flood that killed the entire population of the Earth would be a remarkable event, even assuming that the entire population was confined to the Middle East. The Bible records that the flood lasted a year and covered the highest mountains, and the ark landed on Ararat. Ararat, from memory, is about 14,000 feet high. So the "local flood" idea proposes a flood 14,000 feet deep that lasted a year, but was somehow confined to the Middle East! Unless, of course, you want to mythologise/allegorise/whatever those points. Then of course, why would Noah need to build an ark, when he could have emigrated? And why take birds on board, when they could easily fly to another country? For that matter, why take representatives of all the animals, or does the idea claim that the animals hadn't spread beyond the Middle East either?
:: The "spherical Earth" is not a modern ''assumption''. It is an ''observation''.
:: I'm not convinced that you are correct regarding Joshua's long day. Specifically, do we ''know'' how ancient people took it, or is that an assumption? And is heliocentricism ''really'' the "most natural reading"? The sun standing still is a ''literal'' reading ''of how it appears from Earth'', and perhaps that's simply how ancient people understood it; that is, perhaps no-one understood it to teach heliocentricism (prior to the church adopting pagan ideas on that).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:19, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Dan, we seem to agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, and we seem to agree that the [[Flood]] ''could'' have been worldwide. Because it ''could'' have happened, there is no rational argument for insisting that it must '''not''' have happened. For example, if my wife tells me that she think it rained last night, and I say "no, I don't think so," wouldn't it a surprise if I then emotionally insisted on cutting off debate?? Or if I then insisted that my wife not express her view to our children?? If that insistence on censorship happened, then it would be reasonable to conclude that there something more than science lurking below the discussion.

:A central part of the old earth theory is a denial of a worldwide flood. The theory of an old earth was promoted as a way of persuading more people about evolution in the 1800s. But if there was a worldwide flood after the origin of life, as proven by the limestone deposits, then evolution was cut off anyway and the usefulness of the old earth theory is diminished. So I'd be amazed if you could find a single person who beliefs in both an old earth and a worldwide flood. Yet Catholic doctrine, and Jesus' Passion, implicitly relies on Noah's flood and most Americans accept it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:*There is a mixing of doctrine here that fits a disturbing pattern. The Holy Roman Church does not endorse, nor has it ever said that the Earth was "young" in the manner than YEC's claim it is. One can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years. And contrary to what Andy is promoting here, I believe the Catholic Church has and continues to save millions of souls, believing in one Jesus, one Adam. I don't see anyone "cutting off debate here" but I do see the issue raised as a "red herring". The Catholic Church states the flood is fact. That doesn't mean it happened in the time-frame YEC's are saying it did. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:::: I very much doubt that it's true that the 'Holy Roman church ... has [never] said that the Earth was "young" '. They may not have said so in the last, say, century, but I'd be pretty certain they've said so earlier.
:::: Sure, one can believe in an Earth significantly older than 6,000 years, just as one can believe in pixies at the bottom of the garden. What one ''can'' believe is not the point. What the Bible teaches is the point.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:22, 25 November 2007 (EST)

::: TK, I didn't say anything about what "YEC's are saying," and I don't believe in relying on [[hearsay]] anyway. I'm engaging in a direct and open-minded discussion of the facts here regardless of the perceptions and misperceptions of what others may believe. This discussion is what wikis do best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:50, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:The only person I've ever come across who mixes the views of an old Earth with a worldwide flood is John Oakes, who wrote a book called "Does God Exist?" The book has a lot of seemingly contradictory beliefs, though, because it mixes that with theistic evolution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:23, 24 November 2007 (EST)

By the way, being raised Baptist, I'm not very familiar with Catholic views, so out of curiosity, I'd like to ask how their view of the Passion is associated with Noah's flood. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:26, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Dan, if we agree that [[God]] ''could'' have created a young earth, then why insist with incomplete information that He must not have done so? Also, if we agree on a massive flood, about when do you think it occurred? Around 3000-3500 B.C., or millions of years ago? (Will reply to your second point a bit later.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:28, 24 November 2007 (EST)

If the flood were local, I would probably place the flood early in human history, around 30,000 or 35,000 BC, at least at some point before humans were first in places such as America, because if a flood was local in scope and universal in nature (and the Scripture makes clear that all mankind other than Noah's family was affected), it could not have affected this. Of course, this view accepts that the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were telescoped and thus did not include every generation.

One of the scriptural reasons I accept it as local is Genesis 8:3, where the Bible says that the flood waters receded. If the flood was worldwide, where would the waters have receded to? Also, when God used a wind to help recede the waters in Genesis 8:1, a wind would not have had as much of a tempering effect if the water covered the entire earth. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:33, 24 November 2007 (EST)
:: If the flood was 30,000 or 35,000 B.C., and destroyed all of humanity, then the Australian Aborigines must not be humans, given that they are supposed to have arrived in this country 40,000 to 60,000 years ago. This is one of the problems with Hugh Ross' teach that Greg Neyman supports. And to be picky (like I tend to be; sorry), this doesn't "accept" that the genealogies in Genesis were telescoped, it ''claims'' it, which makes a mockery of them, as they are not just genealogies, but ''chrono''-genealogies.
:: {{Bible ref|Psalm|104|8|version=NASB}} says that "The mountains rose; the valleys sank down". The flood waters didn't cover Everest; Everest, along with many other mountains, rose up at the end of the flood, and the ocean troughs formed or deepened. This explains where the water went.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:33, 25 November 2007 (EST)
: 30,000 BC is too long ago, as human population would have grown to much larger than what it was by the time of [[Christ]]. But adherence to an old earth would inevitably cause older and older times for everything. All the geneology in the [[Bible]] is completely false if the flood was 30,000 BC, and we should have discovered writings older than 3000 BC if the flood was 30,000 BC. Yet no writings or civilizations have been discovered older than the biblical estimated date for the flood.

: In response to your question above abou the Catholic Church, Peter was the first [[Pope]] and founder of the [[Catholic Church]]. He said in 2 Peter 2:4, with the full power of infallibility:

:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 '''and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly'''; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)— 9 then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries, 11 whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:38, 24 November 2007 (EST)

=== Reply to DanH ===

First let me thank DanH for his more restrained discussion here, and for spending time thinking about it.

"''...we must still reach out to these people who are taught [an old Earth] and show them that their faith is true no matter what they believe about origins.''": Agree totally.

"''It is nearly impossible to change one's mind on origins.''": If it's really made up and closed, but YEC groups have been having great success in changing people's minds.

"''If someone is convinced beyond a doubt that the earth is old and struggling with their faith, are we to let them go to hell if we cannot convince them the earth is old?''": No YEC would "let them go to hell" for not believing in a young Earth.

"''Phillip, the Bible does NOT necessitate 6000 years old. The word "day" that is used in Hebrew is used elsewhere in SCripture to indicate a long period of time - even Henry Morris admits this.''": As do I. And the same applies in English. The sentence, "''In my grandfather's day, it took six days to drive across Australia, travelling during the day''" uses the word "day" in three different ways, and one of those ways (the first) is as an indefinite period of time. But which way each occurrence is used is quite clear from the context, and to try and argue that the second reference ("six days") can refer to a long period of time is to abuse the language—it can't mean that. The same applies in Hebrew. When used with "morning", "evening", or a number, the word "day" (''yom'') ''only ever means a literal day''. Genesis uses all three! That it can only be used this way is clear from Hebrew scholars, and from the witness of the church for thousands of years, in that essentially ''nobody'' proposed an "old" Earth on the basis of the biblical record. That is, the idea for an "old" Earth has not come ''from the Bible'', but from non-biblical sources, i.e. secular/atheistic ideas.

"''Please, theologians like Billy Graham, Norm Geisler, JP Moreland, Gleason Archer, Hank Haanegraaf... they all say you can belief in an old earth.''". Yes, they do (as far as I know), but why? They do so ''because they are trying to accommodate the (supposed) science'', not because of Scripture.

"''David Snoke's A Biblical Case for An Old Earth examines all these issues, including the Hebrew - both young and old earth views are theologically feasible.''" I've not read that. What are his ''biblical'' reasons for believing that the Bible teaches an old Earth? Or is it just that it is "feasible", rather than taught?

"''I nearly lost my faith as a teenager when confronted with undeniable proof of an old earth - every argument put forward by young earthers was clearly explained by others.''": The problem that I have with that, of course, is that I don't believe that there ''is'' any "undeniable proof" of an old Earth. And you haven't mentioned any.

"''I became ill and even thought about killing myself because I felt my faith was gone. ... I managed to stay a Christian because I found arguments that an old earth was exegetically possible.''": What you appear to be saying is that in a contest between the claims of fallible scientists and the Bible, if you can't reconcile them, you will go with the fallible scientists? In that case, the fault is with the fallible scientists, not with those that seek to uphold the Bible. What I also noticed is that your comments seem to imply that you had to have the biblical case for an old Earth explained to you, ''because your plain reading of it suggested otherwise''. So the problem was not with the YECs, but between the old-Earthers and ''your'' reading of the Bible. So why blame the YECs?

"''Both sides are guilty of this ... young earthers try to destroy the faith of old earthers by exegetically proving the Bible says the earth is young.''": This is nonsense. YECs are not trying to "destroy the faith" of anyone, but to build their faith, by showing that the Bible ''as nearly everyone, atheist or Christian, understands it'' (whether they believe it or not), ''can be believed''.

"''...the insignificant issue of origins...''": The issue of origins, as has been explained by Andy and even accepted by you, has the potential to destroy the faith of many people. It is thus ''not'' "insignificant".

"''The real problem is liberals who say that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and accept this.''": The ''real'' problem is those that question (reject) God, whether that be in rejecting the biblical foundations of Genesis or the later parts in the New Testament.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 24 November 2007 (EST)
===Reply to All===
Ok everyone - while this YEC v OEC debate is obviously an important point - the real question is what to put into the article. I would like to re-suggest that we state that both atheist and non-Young earth Christians support the idea of an old earth - rather than what we have now, which only states atheist. Beyond that however- we're presenting the idea of an old earth in too much of a negative light. Andy and Phillip (et all) - while both of you obviously think that the earth is young, I think it's fairly obvious that many on this site disagree - and therefore I believe that we should not take a bias towards either side, and thereby I suggest that we drastically reduce the intro, and have maybe one sentence from each side - because if we do bullets like we have now - then this article is going to end up a war zone, and tit-for-tat arguing does nothing to build the encyclopedia.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:27, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Where does your approach end, Iduan? Must we also say in other entries that some Christians support same-sex marriage, [[abortion]], censorship of classroom prayer, banning of the Ten Commandments, etc.??? A good encyclopedia can present positions based on a majority without being paralyzed by each and every exception. There is nothing wrong, for example, with observing and stating that the [[Founders]] of America were Christian, even if there may have been one or two exceptions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:37, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::Andy, come on. Obviously my goal is not to say that some Christians support the banning of the 10 Commandments. Seriously? You're mentioning things completely irrelevant to the point - and obviously the belief in an old earth is not a extreme minority opinion (as the others are) at all. The point is there is obviously a debate over this within the Christian community as proved by TK and DanH and you and Phillip (et all) - and belief in an old earth is a widely held opinion - just like belief in a young earth is weidely held - therefore both should be mentioned--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:45, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Agreed. Most of the Founding Fathers were Christians, and there is no reason to deny that. There is slightly more diversity among leading Christians about the age of the Earth, as evidenced by the list here: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/notable_leaders/index.shtml

I'm not saying these folks are the majority or even that they're right, but only that it is a fairly widely held view. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:52, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The debate did not start over the issue of the old-Earth age being mentioned, and in fact it was in there until Ed took it out, and he's now said that it should be back in. I plan on doing that. The debate was over whether or not the old-Earth view is, at heart, atheistic or not. It is true that a large number of Christian have adopted an old-Earth view, although I'm utterly convinced that this is totally opposed to the clear biblical teaching (for example, there is nothing in the Bible about an old Earth even remotely as clear and unambiguous as the statement of {{Bible ref|Exodus|20|11}} that "...in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them..."), as well as being convinced that their prime reason for having this view is to accommodate the beliefs of fallible scientists, not because of biblical teaching, even though they make arguments that the bible can allow for an old Earth. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== Primeq's edits ==

The reason I reverted Primeq's edits are as follows:
* The edit was a POV argument regarding how one should use or not use sources. As such it has no place in an article about the moon, although would be appropriate on this talk page.
* The logic was faulty. There is nothing inconsistent with quoting a source with regard to ''observed facts'' whilst dismissing that source with regard to ''unobserved belief''.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:35, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*Nothing wrong, so long as it agrees with YEC beliefs, Philip. Those who believe in a older earth are branded here as atheists, and their edits reverted, branded as "illogical" and contrary to "facts" only observed by YEC's. That is indeed disturbing. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:49, 23 November 2007 (EST)
::It has been pointed out more than once on this page in the last half hour that nobody is branding anyone as atheists simply for believing in an old Earth.
::I don't understand your first sentence. The second part of your second sentence is unsubstantiated and I reject it.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:00, 23 November 2007 (EST)

*If you say "old earth" is an atheistic belief, you are indeed branding all those who believe in a Earth older than 6,000 years as such. If you state many atheists believe in a "old earth" you are not. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:09, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::No, people frequently believe two contradictory things, so Christians (i.e. theists) believing something that is inherently atheistic does not mean that they are not Christians. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:13, 23 November 2007 (EST)

::*So you cling to insulting others, by saying your way, or none at all, Philip? Your "truth" is greater than others? If that is not what you are saying, why do you insist upon always stating it as absolute "truth" and "fact", instead of qualifying it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians? Doing so does not denigrate what you believe, or make it wrong. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)
:::Jesus said that He was the ''only'' way to God. There's nothing wrong with saying that one thing is the truth ''if it is'' the truth. Truth is greater than lie; I'm merely claiming that a young Earth is the truth. If you want to refute that, fine, but you won't get far refuting it by asserting that I'm not allowed to claim it as the truth. To qualify it as the beliefs of a small minority of Christians would be very misleading, given that it has been the traditional view of Bible-believers for thousands of years, and is still accepted by a significant and growing number of Bible-believers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)

The question remains - why are we cherry-picking NASA's statements? Does anyone fully understand and can they ratify the laser-interferomtry techniques supposedly used to measure the rate of moon-recedence? Are there reasons to believe the laser-measurements, yet disbelieve the isotope-ratio techniques used to age the moon? I'm sensing a disturbing ethic here of selective accreditation. I'm going to need some help. Regardless of these edits which (out of respect for the Conservapedia social-contract)I will not merely just re-enter and thereby start a cycle of edit/revert followed by account cancellation, I do believe some kind of statement of moon-age is warranted. {{unsigned|Primeq}} --17:38, 23 November 2007
::We are not "cherry-picking". I've already explained above the distinction (observation vs. belief). Yes, there are good reasons to disbelieve the dating methods, as explained in [[radiometric dating]]. In essence, dating is a ''calculation'' based on measurements ''and assumptions''—age is not something that can be directly measured—and those assumptions include an assumption of long ages. So using them to ''prove'' long ages is a circular argument.
:: Regarding a "statement of moon-age", I have reinstated that, with my apologies for completely reverting your edit rather than retaining that useful bit.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 24 November 2007 (EST)

*Perhaps the problem is one of my own, or other's [[ignorance]]? To me, an "old earth" is one significantly older than 6,000 years. Yet, I keep seeing figures ranging from 1 billion to more than 10 billion years. For those who have not committed their life to Biblical study, and that of [[Geology]], it becomes very confusing when there are such drastic differences introduced in and out of this discussion. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:57, 23 November 2007 (EST)

In reply to Primeq, who pathetically has already given up, [[radiometric dating]] relies on defective circular logic. As a matter of sound logic it's not worth relying on, because it assumes that atomic-level decay has been constant since the beginning of the universe. That's implausible and circular with respect to its application.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:56, 23 November 2007 (EST)

== "Many" atheists edit ==

I reverted the qualifier "many" from "promoted by many atheists". Old earth theories are promoted by atheists. There is no denying that. Virtually all atheists believe in old earth theories. Very few, or none, Catholics or any other Christian promotes old earth theories.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 23 November 2007 (EST)

==Tides and the earth-moon distance==

I was wrong about the receding of the moon. [http://astro.isi.edu/notes/tides.html] Someone please revert me. :-( --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:17, 24 November 2007 (EST)

: Not sure which of your edits requires reversion, Ed. I like your removal of the subtitle in the first page of the entry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 24 November 2007 (EST)
::I know what he is talking about, because I was going to ask why he removed it. I've fixed it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia

2007-11-25T18:58:37Z

SimonGordon: wait

I'm confused - where's the evidence of a rampant wave of homosexual-centric deceit? --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 17:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)

This article states that we've listed the 25 worst Supreme Court decisions, and the role deceit played in them. I just checked out that article, and I'm not really sure the role of deceit was mentioned in them. --[[User:Favre4Pope|Favre4Pope]] 18:02, 21 November 2007 (EST)

: Read more carefully. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Does anyone know of any external links that have something nice to say about all our wonderful achievements over the last year? Are there any? I've googled and I've googled but all I can find is obnoxious liberal mockery. [[User:GeorgeShrub|GeorgeShrub]] 11:23, 22 November 2007 (EST)

: It's lonely at the top, George. Those who seek approval by [[liberals]] are better off getting jobs that dole out government benefits. Regardless, happy Thanksgiving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:28, 22 November 2007 (EST)

::Exactly. I was hoping to find endorsements from fellow conservatives and their links recommending our educational, clean, and concise entries to their friends, families and acquaintances. It would give us a nice warm glow inside to see the conservative community supporting us. [[User:GeorgeShrub|GeorgeShrub]] 11:49, 22 November 2007 (EST)

::: There have been lots of favorable articles in the general press, and [[MSNBC]] featured us one day also. Other conservative groups have used our materials. It takes time to be fully accepted. Recall the saying about a prophet and his home town?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:56, 22 November 2007 (EST)

:::: Combating “internet crime.” Is this a reference to the FBI incident?--[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 14:43, 22 November 2007 (EST)

Is anyone in a position to provide links to the favorable articles about us in the general press?

Is anyone in a position to provide links to the conservative groups have used our materials?

I fully agree that it takes time to be fully accepted. A first anniversary seems a good time to take stock.

Are there any links to us on the internet recommending us as an educational, clean, and concise encyclopedia?

If there are, is anyone in a position to provide links to those links?

[[User:GeorgeShrub|GeorgeShrub]] 18:26, 22 November 2007 (EST)

::George, I'm afraid you'll wait for ever for those links. The only people who take Conservapedia seriously are the sysops here. The rest of the world regards it as a source of wacky entertainment. [[User:SimonGordon|SimonGordon]] 13:58, 25 November 2007 (EST)